XDSQ vs. BULZ

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

XDSQ (Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF) and BULZ (MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs) are both Leveraged Equities funds. XDSQ is actively managed, while BULZ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XDSQ returned 14.49%/yr vs 76.27%/yr for BULZ. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XDSQ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for BULZ.

Performance

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) and MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDSQ achieves a 3.09% return, which is significantly lower than BULZ's 39.13% return.

XDSQ

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.67%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 14.87%
• 3Y*: 14.49%
• 5Y*: 9.69%
• 10Y*: —

BULZ

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: -23.69%
• YTD: 39.13%
• 6M: 31.13%
• 1Y: 112.44%
• 3Y*: 76.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XDSQ Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF	3.09%	14.22%	23.12%	23.00%	-16.78%	3.64%
BULZ MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs	39.13%	60.09%	54.09%	394.22%	-92.26%	9.17%

Correlation

The correlation between XDSQ and BULZ is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 18, 2021	0.81

The correlation between XDSQ and BULZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XDSQ	BULZ
Technology	39.1%	60.8%
Financial Services	10.9%	-
Communication Services	10.7%	26.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	13.0%
Healthcare	8.3%	-
Industrials	7.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	-
Energy	3.1%	-
Utilities	2.1%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.7%	-

Return for Risk

XDSQ vs. BULZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDSQ

XDSQ Risk / Return Rank: 45
XDSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
XDSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
XDSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 54
XDSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
XDSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 50

BULZ

BULZ Risk / Return Rank: 44
BULZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
BULZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
BULZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
BULZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
BULZ Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) 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.

	XDSQ	BULZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	1.42	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	1.92	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.25	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	2.09	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.42	5.32	+2.10

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDSQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the BULZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDSQ 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

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDSQ drawdown since its inception was -26.06%, smaller than the maximum BULZ drawdown of -94.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDSQ and BULZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	XDSQ	BULZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.06%	-94.44%	+68.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.60%	-54.22%	+44.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.15%	-67.96%	+48.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-34.45%	+34.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.91%	-57.98%	+53.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	21.21%	-19.20%

Volatility

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator US Equity Accelerated ETF (XDSQ) is 0.59%, while MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3X Leveraged ETNs (BULZ) has a volatility of 34.26%. This indicates that XDSQ 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

	XDSQ	BULZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	34.26%	-33.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.96%	63.37%	-55.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.50%	79.79%	-69.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.28%	91.79%	-76.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.01%	91.79%	-76.78%

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDSQ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than BULZ's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

XDSQ vs. BULZ - Dividend Comparison

Neither XDSQ nor BULZ has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XDSQ and BULZ in my portfolio?

XDSQ and BULZ have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XDSQ or BULZ?

BULZ has higher volatility (34.26%) compared to XDSQ (0.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XDSQ dropped -26.06% vs BULZ's -94.44%.

Which ETF is better, XDSQ or BULZ?

On 3-year performance, BULZ leads with 76.27% vs 14.49% for XDSQ. On fees, XDSQ is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, XDSQ has been the lower-risk option at 0.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XDSQ or BULZ?

Over the 3-year period, BULZ has performed better with a 76.27% return vs 14.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XDSQ or BULZ?

XDSQ is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for BULZ.

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

XDSQ and BULZ have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between XDSQ and BULZ?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for XDSQ and 0.95% for BULZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XDSQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.42 vs 1.42), 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.