LABU vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

LABU (Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - LABU tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LABU returned 6.07%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LABU charges 1.12%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

LABU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) 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, LABU achieves a 12.06% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

LABU

• 1D: 2.37%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 12.06%
• 6M: 8.94%
• 1Y: 207.12%
• 3Y*: 6.07%
• 5Y*: -34.35%
• 10Y*: -11.11%

BULZ

• 1D: 2.00%
• 1M: -5.54%
• YTD: 54.96%
• 6M: 57.61%
• 1Y: 174.30%
• 3Y*: 77.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LABU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	12.06%	79.17%	-26.02%	-13.41%	-80.36%	-33.82%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between LABU and BULZ is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.52

The correlation between LABU and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.52 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LABU vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LABU	BULZ
Healthcare	99.7%	-
Financial Services	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	60.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LABU vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

LABU

LABU Risk / Return Rank: 83
LABU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
LABU Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
LABU Omega Ratio Rank: 66
LABU Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
LABU Martin Ratio Rank: 90

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 63
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 59
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

LABU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) 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.

	LABU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.57	2.12	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.89	2.36	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.32	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.49	3.03	+3.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.31	7.94	+10.36

LABU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LABU Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LABU 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

LABU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LABU drawdown since its inception was -99.18%, which is greater than BULZ's maximum drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LABU and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LABU	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.18%	-94.44%	-4.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.70%	-54.22%	+23.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-78.30%	-67.96%	-10.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-97.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-98.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-96.05%	-26.99%	-69.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-81.69%	-58.18%	-23.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.91%	20.62%	-9.71%

Volatility

LABU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares (LABU) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) have volatilities of 31.31% and 30.02%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LABU	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	31.31%	30.02%	+1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	61.52%	61.86%	-0.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	77.69%	77.55%	+0.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	95.70%	91.54%	+4.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	95.45%	91.54%	+3.91%

LABU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LABU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

LABU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LABU Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bull 3x Shares	0.69%	0.84%	0.35%	0.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.28%	0.64%	0.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LABU and BULZ in my portfolio?

LABU and BULZ have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LABU or BULZ?

LABU has higher volatility (31.31%) compared to BULZ (30.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LABU dropped -99.18% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, LABU or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 6.07% for LABU. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, BULZ has been the lower-risk option at 30.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LABU or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 6.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LABU or BULZ?

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

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

LABU has the higher dividend yield at 0.69%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between LABU and BULZ?

LABU tracks S&P Biotechnology Select Industry 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 LABU and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LABU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 2.12), 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.