PHYL vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PHYL (PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - PHYL is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by Prudential, while BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation. PHYL is actively managed, while BULZ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PHYL returned 9.17%/yr vs 104.75%/yr for BULZ. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PHYL charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

PHYL vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) 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, PHYL achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 108.59% return.

PHYL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 2.36%
• 1Y: 7.99%
• 3Y*: 9.17%
• 5Y*: 4.12%
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: -1.72%
• 1M: 54.86%
• YTD: 108.59%
• 6M: 97.22%
• 1Y: 285.75%
• 3Y*: 104.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PHYL vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PHYL PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF	1.62%	9.65%	8.45%	11.91%	-11.80%	2.02%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	108.59%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	12.62%

Correlation

The correlation between PHYL and BULZ is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 19, 2021	0.52

The correlation between PHYL and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

PHYL vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PHYL	BULZ
Energy	59.0%	-
Communication Services	41.1%	25.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	62.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PHYL vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

PHYL

PHYL Risk / Return Rank: 74
PHYL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
PHYL Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
PHYL Omega Ratio Rank: 83
PHYL Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
PHYL Martin Ratio Rank: 72

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 81
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

PHYL vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) 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.

	PHYL	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	3.88	-1.41
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.67	3.28	+0.39
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.44	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	5.46	-2.46
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.73	14.66	-0.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PHYL vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PHYL Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 3.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PHYL 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

	PHYL	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47	3.88	-1.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.72	0.20	+0.52

Drawdowns

PHYL vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PHYL drawdown since its inception was -22.07%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PHYL and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	PHYL	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.07%	-94.44%	+72.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.68%	-54.22%	+51.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.53%	-67.96%	+63.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-1.72%	+1.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.07%	-58.47%	+55.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	20.18%	-19.60%

Volatility

PHYL vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF (PHYL) is 1.09%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 21.76%. This indicates that PHYL 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

	PHYL	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.09%	21.76%	-20.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.58%	56.70%	-54.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25%	74.25%	-71.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.68%	91.25%	-85.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.66%	91.25%	-83.59%

PHYL vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

PHYL has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is lower than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

PHYL vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

PHYL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.99%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PHYL PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF	6.99%	7.05%	8.28%	7.62%	6.55%	6.13%	7.51%	7.31%	1.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PHYL and BULZ in my portfolio?

PHYL and BULZ have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PHYL or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (21.76%) compared to PHYL (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PHYL dropped -22.07% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, PHYL or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 104.75% vs 9.17% for PHYL. On fees, PHYL is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, PHYL 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, PHYL or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 104.75% return vs 9.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PHYL or BULZ?

PHYL is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

PHYL has the higher dividend yield at 6.99%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between PHYL and BULZ?

PHYL is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while BULZ is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: Prudential and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for PHYL and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.88 vs 2.47), 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.