PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
UMDD vs. BULZ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

UMDD vs. BULZ

Last updated Jul 22, 2026
Documentation

UMDD (ProShares UltraPro MidCap400) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds - UMDD tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%) while BULZ tracks the Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMDD returned 17.74%/yr vs 68.81%/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 FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

As of year-to-date, both investments have demonstrated similar returns, with UMDD at 38.51% and BULZ at 38.51%.

UMDD

1D
3.00%
1M
-1.43%
6M
22.31%
YTD
38.51%
1Y
50.43%
3Y*
17.74%
5Y*
4.51%
10Y*
11.03%
ALL TIME*
19.40%

BULZ

1D
10.04%
1M
-16.61%
6M
40.54%
YTD
38.51%
1Y
89.80%
3Y*
68.81%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
7.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UMDD vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
UMDD
ProShares UltraPro MidCap400		38.51%-2.57%19.68%27.21%-49.60%14.65%
BULZ
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs		38.51%60.09%54.09%394.22%-92.26%9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between UMDD and BULZ is 0.53, 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

0.53

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.57

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 0.53 (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

25.3%

-

Technology

17.2%
65.0%

Financial Services

13.9%
13.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.5%
14.2%

Healthcare

9.0%

-

Real Estate

7.2%

-

Basic Materials

4.8%

-

Energy

4.6%

-

Consumer Defensive

3.2%

-

Utilities

2.9%

-

Communication Services

1.5%
20.9%

Industrials

UMDD
25.3%
BULZ

-

Technology

UMDD
17.2%
BULZ
65.0%

Financial Services

UMDD
13.9%
BULZ
13.3%

Consumer Cyclical

UMDD
10.5%
BULZ
14.2%

Healthcare

UMDD
9.0%
BULZ

-

Real Estate

UMDD
7.2%
BULZ

-

Basic Materials

UMDD
4.8%
BULZ

-

Energy

UMDD
4.6%
BULZ

-

Consumer Defensive

UMDD
3.2%
BULZ

-

Utilities

UMDD
2.9%
BULZ

-

Communication Services

UMDD
1.5%
BULZ
20.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

ProShares UltraPro MidCap400

MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs

Often compared with UMDD:
UMDD vs. MIDUUMDD vs. SMDDUMDD vs. MVVUMDD vs. SAAUMDD vs. TQQQUMDD vs. MDYUMDD vs. URTY
Often compared with BULZ:
BULZ vs. FNGUBULZ vs. SOXLBULZ vs. TECLBULZ vs. TQQQBULZ vs. BERZBULZ vs. FNGOBULZ vs. SMCI

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: 4545
Overall Rank
UMDD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UMDD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
UMDD Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
UMDD Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
UMDD Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
BULZ
BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank
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 FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (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.

UMDDBULZDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.07
1.10

-0.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.69
1.71

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.22

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.95

1.67

+0.28

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.43

3.92

+2.50

UMDD vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMDD Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UMDDBULZDifference

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

-5.90%

-34.74%

+28.84%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.46%

-57.65%

+34.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.87%

22.96%

-15.09%

Volatility

UMDD vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares UltraPro MidCap400 (UMDD) is 10.22%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 26.72%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UMDDBULZDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.22%

26.72%

-16.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.30%

66.44%

-31.14%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

47.25%

82.28%

-35.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

58.69%

91.72%

-33.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

62.10%

91.72%

-29.62%

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 0.67%, while BULZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BULZ
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs		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		0.67%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

UMDD and BULZ have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BULZ has higher volatility (26.72%) compared to UMDD (10.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMDD dropped -86.24% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 68.81% vs 17.74% for UMDD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, UMDD has been the lower-risk option at 10.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 68.81% return vs 17.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

UMDD has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.00% for BULZ.

UMDD tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index (300%), while BULZ tracks Solactive FANG Innovation Index (300%). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and BMO.

BULZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.10 vs 1.07), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UMDD and BULZ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer