GDXD vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GDXD (MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GDXD is a Inverse Equities fund tracking the S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDXD returned -84.24%/yr vs 102.20%/yr for BULZ. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

GDXD vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDXD achieves a -51.20% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 100.89% return.

GDXD

• 1D: 10.76%
• 1M: -10.12%
• YTD: -51.20%
• 6M: -62.62%
• 1Y: -93.08%
• 3Y*: -84.24%
• 5Y*: -72.73%
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -3.69%
• 1M: 48.46%
• YTD: 100.89%
• 6M: 88.97%
• 1Y: 258.75%
• 3Y*: 102.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GDXD vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GDXD MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs	-51.20%	-97.53%	-57.78%	-52.35%	-52.56%	-25.72%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	12.62%

Correlation

The correlation between GDXD and BULZ is -0.30, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 19, 2021	-0.22

GDXD vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDXD	BULZ
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	62.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GDXD vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GDXD

GDXD Risk / Return Rank: 2
GDXD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
GDXD Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Omega Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
GDXD Martin Ratio Rank: 3

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 76
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 69

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

GDXD vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	GDXD	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.68	3.51	-4.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-1.88	3.13	-5.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.80	1.42	-0.62
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.97	4.81	-5.77
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.22	12.88	-14.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GDXD vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDXD Sharpe Ratio is -0.68, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 3.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDXD and BULZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GDXD	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.68	3.51	-4.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.67	0.19	-0.86

Drawdowns

GDXD vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDXD drawdown since its inception was -99.96%, which is greater than BULZ's maximum drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDXD and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDXD	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.96%	-94.44%	-5.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-96.33%	-54.22%	-42.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.86%	-67.96%	-31.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-99.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.93%	-5.35%	-94.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-71.85%	-58.42%	-13.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	75.91%	20.19%	+55.72%

Volatility

GDXD vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

MicroSectors Gold Miners -3X Inverse Leveraged ETNs (GDXD) has a higher volatility of 47.44% compared to MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) at 22.49%. This indicates that GDXD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BULZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDXD	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	47.44%	22.49%	+24.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	109.86%	56.86%	+53.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	136.25%	74.35%	+61.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	109.97%	91.23%	+18.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	109.35%	91.23%	+18.12%

GDXD vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GDXD and BULZ have an expense ratio of 0.95%.

Dividends

GDXD vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDXD nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDXD and BULZ in my portfolio?

GDXD and BULZ have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDXD or BULZ?

GDXD has higher volatility (47.44%) compared to BULZ (22.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDXD dropped -99.96% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, GDXD or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 102.20% vs -84.24% for GDXD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 22.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDXD or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 102.20% return vs -84.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDXD or BULZ?

GDXD and BULZ have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDXD or BULZ?

GDXD and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GDXD and BULZ?

GDXD is categorized as Inverse Equities, while BULZ is Leveraged Equities. GDXD tracks S-Network MicroSectors Gold Miners Index - Benchmark TR Gross (-300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs -0.68), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.