BULZ vs IVV
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3x Leveraged ETN vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. BULZ delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BULZ | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $3.2B | $886.7B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 0 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +39.31% | +12.13% | |
| 1Y Return | +91.49% | +20.37% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +67.41% | +20.91% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.75% | +12.59% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 94.5% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -94.4% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | BMO Capital Markets | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 17, 2021 | May 15, 2000 |
BULZ vs IVV Performance
MicroSectors FANG & Innovation 3x Leveraged ETN (BULZ) is a ETF from BMO Capital Markets and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BULZ returned +91.49% while IVV returned +20.37%. Year to date, BULZ is up 39.31% versus a gain of 12.13% for IVV.
Over three years, BULZ compounded at +67.41% per year against +20.91% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +4.75% and +12.59% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, BULZ has the edge at +8.08% annualized vs +6.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BULZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 94.5% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BULZ charges 0.95% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BULZ currently yields 0.00% against 1.10% for IVV.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BULZ or IVV?
BULZ has an expense ratio of 0.95% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $92 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BULZ or IVV?
Over the past year BULZ returned +91.49% vs +20.37% for IVV, so BULZ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), BULZ annualized +8.08% vs +6.97% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BULZ or IVV?
BULZ has been the more volatile fund at 94.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: BULZ -94.4% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BULZ and IVV?
BULZ and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
Which pays a higher dividend, BULZ or IVV?
BULZ yields 0.00% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.