NRGD vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NRGD (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - NRGD tracks the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NRGD returned -72.26% vs 135.83% for BULZ. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

NRGD vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) 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, NRGD achieves a -63.27% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 42.05% return.

NRGD

• 1D: -2.47%
• 1M: 16.95%
• YTD: -63.27%
• 6M: -63.90%
• 1Y: -72.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -11.88%
• 1M: -15.57%
• YTD: 42.05%
• 6M: 35.20%
• 1Y: 135.83%
• 3Y*: 74.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NRGD vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGD MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN	-63.27%	-35.40%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	42.05%	32.67%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGD and BULZ is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	-0.04

The correlation between NRGD and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (all time) to 0.12 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGD vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGD	BULZ
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	60.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

NRGD vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGD

NRGD Risk / Return Rank: 1
NRGD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Omega Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
NRGD Martin Ratio Rank: 1

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

NRGD vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) 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.

	NRGD	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	1.71	-2.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.82	2.12	-3.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	1.28	-0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.90	2.52	-3.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.45	6.50	-7.95

NRGD vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGD Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGD 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

NRGD vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGD drawdown since its inception was -89.64%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGD and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGD	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.64%	-94.44%	+4.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-80.03%	-54.22%	-25.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-86.51%	-33.07%	-53.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-59.82%	-58.02%	-1.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	49.93%	20.98%	+28.95%

Volatility

NRGD vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index -3X Inverse Leveraged ETN (NRGD) is 24.74%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 35.31%. This indicates that NRGD 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

	NRGD	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.74%	35.31%	-10.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	59.20%	63.55%	-4.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.34%	80.03%	-4.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	88.73%	91.84%	-3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	88.73%	91.84%	-3.11%

NRGD vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NRGD vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGD nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGD and BULZ in my portfolio?

NRGD and BULZ have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRGD or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (35.31%) compared to NRGD (24.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGD dropped -89.64% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, NRGD or BULZ?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 135.83% vs -72.26% for NRGD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, NRGD has been the lower-risk option at 24.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGD or BULZ?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 135.83% return vs -72.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGD or BULZ?

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

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

NRGD and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between NRGD and BULZ?

NRGD tracks Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs -0.97), 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.