MAGX vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MAGX (Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds. MAGX is actively managed, while BULZ is passively managed. Over the past year, MAGX returned 50.73% vs 258.75% for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

MAGX vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGX) 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, MAGX achieves a 1.49% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 100.89% return.

MAGX

• 1D: -2.59%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 0.41%
• 1Y: 50.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

MAGX vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MAGX Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF	1.49%	26.16%	81.14%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	100.89%	60.09%	18.80%

Correlation

The correlation between MAGX and BULZ is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2024	0.86

The correlation between MAGX and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

MAGX vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

MAGX vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MAGX

MAGX Risk / Return Rank: 31
MAGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
MAGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
MAGX Omega Ratio Rank: 32
MAGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
MAGX Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

MAGX vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGX) 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.

	MAGX	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	3.51	-2.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	3.13	-1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.42	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	4.81	-3.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.21	12.88	-8.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MAGX vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 3.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAGX 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

	MAGX	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.28	3.51	-2.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.85	0.19	+0.66

Drawdowns

MAGX vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAGX drawdown since its inception was -54.19%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAGX and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAGX	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.19%	-94.44%	+40.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.24%	-54.22%	+16.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.49%	-5.35%	-2.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.78%	-58.42%	+44.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.09%	20.19%	-8.10%

Volatility

MAGX vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGX) is 9.19%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 22.49%. This indicates that MAGX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BULZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MAGX	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.19%	22.49%	-13.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.81%	56.86%	-28.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.88%	74.35%	-34.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	53.52%	91.23%	-37.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	53.52%	91.23%	-37.71%

MAGX vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MAGX vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

MAGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MAGX Roundhill Daily 2X Long Magnificent Seven ETF	2.02%	2.05%	0.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAGX and BULZ in my portfolio?

MAGX and BULZ have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAGX or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (22.49%) compared to MAGX (9.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAGX dropped -54.19% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, MAGX or BULZ?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 258.75% vs 50.73% for MAGX. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, MAGX has been the lower-risk option at 9.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MAGX or BULZ?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 258.75% return vs 50.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAGX or BULZ?

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

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

MAGX has the higher dividend yield at 2.02%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between MAGX and BULZ?

They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 1.28), 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.