IRVH vs. BNKU

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

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 -2.13% vs 119.83% for BNKU. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. IRVH charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BNKU.

Performance

IRVH vs. BNKU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IRVH achieves a -4.36% return, which is significantly lower than BNKU's 21.63% return.

IRVH

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: -4.36%
• 6M: -4.00%
• 1Y: -2.13%
• 3Y*: 0.01%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BNKU

• 1D: 4.59%
• 1M: 26.58%
• YTD: 21.63%
• 6M: 15.98%
• 1Y: 119.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IRVH vs. BNKU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IRVH Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF	-4.36%	7.14%
BNKU MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs	21.63%	34.97%

Correlation

The correlation between IRVH and BNKU is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.15

Return for Risk

IRVH vs. BNKU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IRVH

IRVH Risk / Return Rank: 5
IRVH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
IRVH Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
IRVH Omega Ratio Rank: 5
IRVH Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
IRVH Martin Ratio Rank: 5

BNKU

BNKU Risk / Return Rank: 55
BNKU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BNKU Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
BNKU Omega Ratio Rank: 51
BNKU Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
BNKU Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.44	2.09	-2.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.59	2.41	-3.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.31	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.36	2.94	-3.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.82	7.74	-8.56

IRVH vs. BNKU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IRVH Sharpe Ratio is -0.44, which is lower than the BNKU Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IRVH and BNKU, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	IRVH	BNKU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.98%	-61.21%	+46.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.96%	-40.97%	+35.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.28%	0.00%	-11.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.72%	-17.80%	+8.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.60%	15.55%	-12.95%

Volatility

IRVH vs. BNKU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Interest Rate Volatility & Inflation Hedge ETF (IRVH) is 1.09%, while MicroSectors U.S. Big Banks Index 3X Leveraged ETNs (BNKU) has a volatility of 16.19%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	IRVH	BNKU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.09%	16.19%	-15.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.35%	46.22%	-42.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.85%	57.82%	-52.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.80%	72.92%	-64.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.80%	72.92%	-64.12%

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 5.62%, 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	5.62%	4.89%	3.34%	3.69%	2.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IRVH and BNKU in my portfolio?

IRVH and BNKU have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IRVH or BNKU?

BNKU has higher volatility (16.19%) compared to IRVH (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IRVH dropped -14.98% vs BNKU's -61.21%.

Which ETF is better, IRVH or BNKU?

On 1-year performance, BNKU leads with 119.83% vs -2.13% for IRVH. On fees, IRVH is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IRVH has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IRVH or BNKU?

Over the 1-year period, BNKU has performed better with a 119.83% return vs -2.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IRVH or BNKU?

IRVH is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BNKU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IRVH or BNKU?

IRVH has the higher dividend yield at 5.62%, compared with 0.00% for BNKU.

What is the main difference between IRVH and BNKU?

IRVH is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while BNKU is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Bank of Montreal. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IRVH and 0.95% for BNKU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNKU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs -0.44), 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.