TQQQ vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

TQQQ (ProShares UltraPro QQQ) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - TQQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TQQQ returned 59.79%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) 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, TQQQ achieves a 47.28% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

TQQQ

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 47.28%
• 6M: 47.23%
• 1Y: 106.26%
• 3Y*: 59.79%
• 5Y*: 24.34%
• 10Y*: 44.55%

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)

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TQQQ ProShares UltraPro QQQ	47.28%	34.35%	58.27%	198.04%	-79.09%	24.34%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between TQQQ and BULZ is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.96

The correlation between TQQQ and BULZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TQQQ	BULZ
Technology	53.8%	62.3%
Communication Services	15.8%	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	-
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

TQQQ vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

TQQQ

TQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 64
TQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
TQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
TQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 62
TQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
TQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) 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.

	TQQQ	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.12	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	2.36	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	3.03	-0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.26	7.94	+1.31

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TQQQ 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

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TQQQ drawdown since its inception was -81.66%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TQQQ and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	TQQQ	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.66%	-94.44%	+12.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.97%	-54.22%	+17.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.04%	-67.96%	+9.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-81.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-81.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.12%	-26.99%	+15.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.51%	-58.18%	+39.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.52%	20.62%	-9.10%

Volatility

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ) is 22.79%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that TQQQ 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

	TQQQ	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.79%	30.02%	-7.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.26%	61.86%	-20.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.24%	77.55%	-26.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.02%	91.54%	-24.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	66.22%	91.54%	-25.32%

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

TQQQ vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

TQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%
TQQQ ProShares UltraPro QQQ	0.41%	0.65%	1.27%	1.26%	0.57%	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TQQQ and BULZ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, TQQQ and BULZ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, TQQQ or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to TQQQ (22.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TQQQ dropped -81.66% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, TQQQ or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 59.79% for TQQQ. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, TQQQ has been the lower-risk option at 22.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TQQQ or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 59.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TQQQ or BULZ?

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

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

TQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between TQQQ and BULZ?

TQQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and BMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.09), 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.