BULZ vs FNGG
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3x Leveraged ETN vs Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF
Which is better, BULZ or FNGG?
BULZ has been ahead.
BULZ has a lower expense ratio. BULZ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. BULZ is less concentrated, with 68.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 89.7%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BULZ | FNGG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95%Best | 0.96% |
| AUM | $3.7B | $124M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 8.98% |
| Holdings | 15 | 36 |
| YTD Return | +50.39%Best | +38.70% |
| 1Y Return | +48.82%Best | +27.96% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +78.24%Best | +61.84% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.38%Best | +3.39% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 94.3% | 57.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -94.4% | -91.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,954Best | $11,814 |
| Top 10 Weight | 68.3%Best | 89.7% |
| Fund Family | BMO Capital Markets | Direxion Shares ETF Trust |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Trading-Leveraged Equity | Trading-Leveraged Equity |
| Inception | Aug 17, 2021 | Sep 29, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 30, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5 years).
BULZ vs FNGG growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 5 years both funds cover.
BULZ vs FNGG Performance
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3x Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is an ETF from BMO Capital Markets and Direxion Daily NYSE FANG+ Bull 2X ETF (FNGG) is an ETF from Direxion Shares ETF Trust. Over the past year BULZ returned +48.82% while FNGG returned +27.96%. Year to date, BULZ is up 50.39% versus a gain of 38.70% for FNGG.
Over three years, BULZ compounded at +78.24% per year against +61.84% for FNGG; over five years the annualized figures are +8.38% and +3.39% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BULZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 94.3% compared with 57.6% for FNGG. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -94.4% for BULZ and -91.3% for FNGG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BULZ charges 0.95% per year while FNGG charges 0.96%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $96 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BULZ currently yields 0.00% against 8.98% for FNGG.
Holdings Overlap
66.7% of BULZ's money is in holdings FNGG also owns. 45.4% of FNGG's money is in holdings BULZ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
10 positions in common, counted across the 15 positions we hold weights for in BULZ and 12 in FNGG, against full books of 15 and 36.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 15 and 12 positions we hold weights for.
FNGG holds 2 positions BULZ does not, 52.5% of the fund.
Largest: DGCXX 38.56%, FGTXX 13.96%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BULZ | Weight in FNGG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 6.88% | 5.05% | 1.83% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 7.15% | 4.71% | 2.44% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 6.91% | 4.72% | 2.19% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 6.74% | 4.76% | 1.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.81% | 4.60% | 2.21% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 6.45% | 4.56% | 1.89% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.44% | 4.45% | 1.99% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.50% | 4.37% | 2.13% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 6.46% | 4.36% | 2.10% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 6.36% | 3.82% | 2.54% |
66.7% of BULZ is already inside FNGG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BULZ or FNGG?
BULZ has an expense ratio of 0.95% while FNGG charges 0.96%. BULZ is the cheaper option, by $1 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BULZ or FNGG?
Over the past year BULZ returned +48.82% vs +27.96% for FNGG, so BULZ leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BULZ or FNGG?
BULZ has been the more volatile fund at 94.3% annualized versus 57.6% for FNGG. Worst drawdown: BULZ -94.4% vs FNGG -91.3%.
Should I hold both BULZ and FNGG?
BULZ and FNGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BULZ and FNGG?
66.7% of BULZ's money is in holdings FNGG also owns. 45.4% of FNGG's is in holdings BULZ also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 15 positions we hold weights for in BULZ and 12 in FNGG.
Which pays a higher dividend, BULZ or FNGG?
BULZ yields 0.00% while FNGG yields 8.98%, so FNGG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FNGG better than BULZ?
BULZ has a lower expense ratio. BULZ led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. BULZ is less concentrated, with 68.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 89.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.