TNA vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

TNA (Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - TNA tracks the Russell 2000 Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TNA returned 25.74%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TNA charges 1.14%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

TNA vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) and MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with TNA having a 53.14% return and BULZ slightly higher at 54.96%.

TNA

• 1D: 2.53%
• 1M: 8.84%
• YTD: 53.14%
• 6M: 40.13%
• 1Y: 117.40%
• 3Y*: 25.74%
• 5Y*: -6.50%
• 10Y*: 8.78%

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)

TNA vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	53.14%	9.82%	7.21%	26.24%	-62.48%	4.95%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between TNA and BULZ is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.69

The correlation between TNA and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

TNA vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TNA	BULZ
Industrials	17.5%	-
Technology	16.9%	62.3%
Healthcare	16.5%	-
Financial Services	15.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	12.8%
Real Estate	6.2%	-
Energy	6.2%	-
Basic Materials	4.8%	-
Utilities	2.9%	-
Communication Services	2.5%	25.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	-

Return for Risk

TNA vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

TNA

TNA Risk / Return Rank: 68
TNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
TNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
TNA Omega Ratio Rank: 54
TNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TNA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

TNA vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) 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.

	TNA	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	2.12	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	2.36	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.32	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.63	3.03	+0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.92	7.94	+3.97

TNA vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TNA Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TNA 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

TNA vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TNA drawdown since its inception was -88.09%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TNA and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	TNA	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.09%	-94.44%	+6.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.53%	-54.22%	+21.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.78%	-67.96%	+2.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-82.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-88.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.23%	-26.99%	-8.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.92%	-58.18%	+24.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.91%	20.62%	-10.71%

Volatility

TNA vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares (TNA) is 21.54%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that TNA 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

	TNA	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	21.54%	30.02%	-8.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.61%	61.86%	-19.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	58.70%	77.55%	-18.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.57%	91.54%	-23.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	68.54%	91.54%	-23.00%

TNA vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

TNA has a 1.14% expense ratio, which is higher than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

TNA vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

TNA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, 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%
TNA Direxion Daily Small Cap Bull 3X Shares	0.39%	0.78%	0.93%	1.27%	0.31%	0.06%	0.03%	0.44%	0.36%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TNA and BULZ in my portfolio?

TNA and BULZ have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TNA or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to TNA (21.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TNA dropped -88.09% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, TNA or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 25.74% for TNA. On fees, BULZ is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, TNA has been the lower-risk option at 21.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TNA or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 25.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TNA or BULZ?

BULZ is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for TNA.

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

TNA has the higher dividend yield at 0.39%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between TNA and BULZ?

TNA tracks Russell 2000 Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: Direxion and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.14% for TNA and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.01), 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.