IRVH vs. BNKU
IRVH (Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF) and BNKU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both exchange-traded funds - IRVH is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund actively managed by Global X, while BNKU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index (-300%). IRVH is actively managed, while BNKU is passively managed. Over the past year, IRVH returned -3.57% vs 97.48% for BNKU. Their -0.15 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. IRVH charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BNKU.
Performance
IRVH vs. BNKU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IRVH achieves a -4.59% return, which is significantly lower than BNKU's 29.42% return.
IRVH
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- 6M
- -4.04%
- YTD
- -4.59%
- 1Y
- -3.57%
- 3Y*
- 0.11%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.19%
BNKU
- 1D
- 1.30%
- 1M
- 5.51%
- 6M
- 25.35%
- YTD
- 29.42%
- 1Y
- 97.48%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 47.30%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $317.79K | $636.80K | $487.95K | |
| $471.52 | $4.02K | $5.19K |
IRVH vs. BNKU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IRVH Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF | -4.59% | 7.14% |
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs | 29.42% | 34.97% |
Correlation
The correlation between IRVH and BNKU is -0.14, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025 | -0.15 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IRVH vs. BNKU — Risk / Return Rank
IRVH
BNKU
IRVH vs. BNKU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). 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.
| IRVH | BNKU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.82 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | 1.24 | -0.35 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.49 | 2.05 | -2.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.97 | 5.41 | -6.38 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IRVH vs. BNKU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IRVH drawdown since its inception was -14.98%, smaller than the maximum BNKU drawdown of -61.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IRVH and BNKU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IRVH | BNKU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.98% | -61.21% | +46.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.48% | -40.97% | +34.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.03% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.49% | -7.55% | -3.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.76% | -16.77% | +7.01% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.26% | 15.55% | -12.29% |
Volatility
IRVH vs. BNKU - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) is 0.88%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) has a volatility of 18.44%. This indicates that IRVH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNKU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IRVH | BNKU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.88% | 18.44% | -17.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.18% | 46.92% | -43.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.66% | 59.78% | -55.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.70% | 72.00% | -63.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.70% | 72.00% | -63.30% |
IRVH vs. BNKU - Expense Ratio Comparison
IRVH has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than BNKU's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
IRVH vs. BNKU - Dividend Comparison
IRVH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.68%, while BNKU has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IRVH Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF | 5.31% | 4.89% | 3.34% | 3.69% | 2.73% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IRVH and BNKU have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BNKU has higher volatility (18.44%) compared to IRVH (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IRVH dropped -14.98% vs BNKU's -61.21%.
On 1-year performance, BNKU leads with 97.48% vs -3.57% for IRVH. On fees, IRVH is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IRVH has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BNKU has performed better with a 97.48% return vs -3.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IRVH is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BNKU.
IRVH has the higher dividend yield at 5.31%, compared with 0.00% for BNKU.
IRVH is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while BNKU is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IRVH and 0.95% for BNKU.
BNKU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 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.
Find the right allocation for IRVH and BNKU
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer