TMF vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - TMF is a Leveraged Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%), while BULZ is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMF returned -19.82%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMF charges 1.01%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

TMF vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) 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, TMF achieves a -5.18% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

TMF

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: -5.18%
• 6M: -5.04%
• 1Y: -4.90%
• 3Y*: -19.82%
• 5Y*: -31.10%
• 10Y*: -16.87%

BULZ

• 1D: 2.00%
• 1M: -11.00%
• YTD: 54.96%
• 6M: 57.61%
• 1Y: 163.08%
• 3Y*: 77.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMF vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF	-5.18%	-2.94%	-35.95%	-13.01%	-72.60%	-2.94%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between TMF and BULZ is 0.10, 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	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.04

TMF vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMF	BULZ
Financial Services	18.4%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	62.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

TMF vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMF

TMF Risk / Return Rank: 8
TMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TMF Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TMF Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

TMF vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) 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.

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.

	TMF	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.17	2.12	-2.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.05	2.36	-2.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.32	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	3.03	-3.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.41	7.94	-8.36

TMF vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMF Sharpe Ratio is -0.17, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMF 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

TMF vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMF drawdown since its inception was -92.89%, roughly equal to the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMF and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMF	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.89%	-94.44%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.51%	-54.22%	+27.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-56.31%	-67.96%	+11.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-88.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-92.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.15%	-26.99%	-65.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.70%	-58.18%	+14.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.96%	20.62%	-8.66%

Volatility

TMF vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF (TMF) is 8.43%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that TMF 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

	TMF	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.43%	30.02%	-21.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.46%	61.86%	-42.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.49%	77.55%	-49.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.72%	91.54%	-44.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	43.92%	91.54%	-47.62%

TMF vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMF has a 1.01% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMF vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

TMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.11%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%	0.00%
TMF Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF	4.11%	4.06%	4.29%	2.82%	1.62%	0.13%	2.23%	0.94%	1.49%	0.41%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMF and BULZ in my portfolio?

TMF and BULZ have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMF or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to TMF (8.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMF dropped -92.89% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, TMF or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs -19.82% for TMF. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, TMF has been the lower-risk option at 8.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMF or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs -19.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMF or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for TMF.

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

TMF has the higher dividend yield at 4.11%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between TMF and BULZ?

TMF is categorized as Leveraged Bonds, while BULZ is Leveraged Equities. TMF tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.01% for TMF and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs -0.17), 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.