NRGU vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds from BMO - NRGU 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, NRGU returned 87.62% vs 112.44% for BULZ. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

NRGU vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) 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, NRGU achieves a 74.97% return, which is significantly higher than BULZ's 39.13% return.

NRGU

• 1D: 2.72%
• 1M: -13.53%
• YTD: 74.97%
• 6M: 78.13%
• 1Y: 87.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: -23.69%
• YTD: 39.13%
• 6M: 31.13%
• 1Y: 112.44%
• 3Y*: 76.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NRGU vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	74.97%	-30.00%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	39.13%	32.67%

Correlation

The correlation between NRGU and BULZ is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.05

The correlation between NRGU and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NRGU vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRGU	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

NRGU vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 38
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 36
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 36

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 44
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

NRGU vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	NRGU	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.42	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	1.92	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.25	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	2.09	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.94	5.32	-0.38

NRGU vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRGU Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRGU 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

NRGU vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRGU drawdown since its inception was -57.50%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRGU and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRGU	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.50%	-94.44%	+36.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-42.71%	-54.22%	+11.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-67.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-39.65%	-34.45%	-5.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.68%	-57.98%	+32.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.80%	21.21%	-3.41%

Volatility

NRGU vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU) is 25.61%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 34.26%. This indicates that NRGU 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

	NRGU	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.61%	34.26%	-8.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	62.83%	63.37%	-0.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	75.96%	79.79%	-3.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	89.05%	91.79%	-2.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	89.05%	91.79%	-2.74%

NRGU vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

NRGU vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither NRGU nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRGU and BULZ in my portfolio?

NRGU and BULZ have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRGU or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (34.26%) compared to NRGU (25.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRGU dropped -57.50% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, NRGU or BULZ?

On 1-year performance, BULZ leads with 112.44% vs 87.62% for NRGU. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, NRGU has been the lower-risk option at 25.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRGU or BULZ?

Over the 1-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 112.44% return vs 87.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRGU or BULZ?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between NRGU and BULZ?

NRGU 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 (1.42 vs 1.16), 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.