UMDD vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) and BULZ (MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN) are both Leveraged Equities funds - UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMDD returned 23.57%/yr vs 77.02%/yr for BULZ. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.

Performance

UMDD vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) 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, UMDD achieves a 41.42% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 54.96% return.

UMDD

• 1D: 2.20%
• 1M: 10.73%
• YTD: 41.42%
• 6M: 35.75%
• 1Y: 66.43%
• 3Y*: 23.57%
• 5Y*: 2.41%
• 10Y*: 12.78%

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)

UMDD vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	41.42%	-2.57%	19.68%	27.21%	-49.60%	14.65%
BULZ MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN	54.96%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between UMDD and BULZ is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.66

The correlation between UMDD and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UMDD vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMDD	BULZ
Industrials	13.4%	-
Technology	9.0%	62.3%
Financial Services	7.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	12.8%
Healthcare	4.8%	-
Real Estate	3.9%	-
Energy	2.7%	-
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Communication Services	0.5%	25.0%

Return for Risk

UMDD vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMDD

UMDD Risk / Return Rank: 49
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 43
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

UMDD vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) 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.

	UMDD	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.40	2.12	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.36	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.32	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.56	3.03	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.58	7.94	+0.64

UMDD vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMDD Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is lower than the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMDD 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

UMDD vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMDD drawdown since its inception was -86.24%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMDD and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMDD	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.24%	-94.44%	+8.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.04%	-54.22%	+28.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-60.33%	-67.96%	+7.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-64.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-86.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.15%	-26.99%	+23.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.58%	-58.18%	+34.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.78%	20.62%	-12.84%

Volatility

UMDD vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) is 14.80%, while MicroSectors Solactive FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETN (BULZ) has a volatility of 30.02%. This indicates that UMDD 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

	UMDD	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.80%	30.02%	-15.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.26%	61.86%	-26.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.64%	77.55%	-29.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.05%	91.54%	-32.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.32%	91.54%	-29.22%

UMDD vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

UMDD vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

UMDD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, 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%
UMDD ProShares UltraPro MidCap400	0.74%	1.00%	0.76%	0.19%	0.49%	0.06%	0.08%	0.64%	0.32%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMDD and BULZ in my portfolio?

UMDD and BULZ have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMDD or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (30.02%) compared to UMDD (14.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMDD dropped -86.24% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, UMDD or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 77.02% vs 23.57% for UMDD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UMDD has been the lower-risk option at 14.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMDD or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 77.02% return vs 23.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMDD or BULZ?

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

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

What is the main difference between UMDD and BULZ?

UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 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 1.40), 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.