HIBL vs. BULZ

Last updated Jul 22, 2026

HIBL (Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - HIBL tracks the S&P 500 High Beta Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HIBL returned 38.71%/yr vs 68.81%/yr for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HIBL charges 1.12%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

HIBL vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HIBL achieves a 59.83% return, which is significantly higher than BULZ's 38.51% return.

HIBL

• 1D: 10.51%
• 1M: -19.93%
• 6M: 50.26%
• YTD: 59.83%
• 1Y: 119.45%
• 3Y*: 38.71%
• 5Y*: 13.07%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.86%

BULZ

• 1D: 10.04%
• 1M: -16.61%
• 6M: 40.54%
• YTD: 38.51%
• 1Y: 89.80%
• 3Y*: 68.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.50%

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

HIBL vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
HIBL Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares	59.83%	60.38%	-0.40%	81.02%	-68.24%	26.76%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	38.51%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between HIBL and BULZ is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.85

The correlation between HIBL and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

HIBL vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HIBL	BULZ
Technology	46.6%	65.0%
Industrials	15.8%	-
Financial Services	12.4%	13.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.4%	14.2%
Healthcare	5.6%	-
Utilities	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	2.1%	-
Communication Services	2.1%	20.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	-
Energy	0.2%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

HIBL vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

HIBL

HIBL Risk / Return Rank: 69
HIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
HIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
HIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 56
HIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
HIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 81

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 42
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

HIBL vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	HIBL	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	1.10	+0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.71	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.22	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.83	1.67	+2.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.56	3.92	+7.63

HIBL vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HIBL Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is higher than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HIBL 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.

Drawdowns

HIBL vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HIBL drawdown since its inception was -88.27%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HIBL and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	HIBL	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.27%	-94.44%	+6.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.39%	-54.22%	+22.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-69.66%	-67.96%	-1.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-81.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.42%	-34.74%	+11.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.61%	-57.65%	+14.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.38%	22.96%	-12.58%

Volatility

HIBL vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares (HIBL) has a higher volatility of 30.74% compared to MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) at 26.72%. This indicates that HIBL'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

	HIBL	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	30.74%	26.72%	+4.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	64.08%	66.44%	-2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.09%	82.28%	-5.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	83.45%	91.72%	-8.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	92.50%	91.72%	+0.78%

HIBL vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

HIBL has a 1.12% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

HIBL vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

HIBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HIBL Direxion Daily S&P 500 High Beta Bull 3X Shares	1.42%	2.43%	0.82%	0.69%	0.00%	0.06%	0.19%	0.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HIBL and BULZ in my portfolio?

HIBL and BULZ have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HIBL or BULZ?

HIBL has higher volatility (30.74%) compared to BULZ (26.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HIBL dropped -88.27% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, HIBL or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 68.81% vs 38.71% for HIBL. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 26.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HIBL or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 68.81% return vs 38.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HIBL or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.12% for HIBL.

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

HIBL has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between HIBL and BULZ?

HIBL tracks S&P 500 High Beta Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.12% for HIBL and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 1.10), 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.