AMUB vs. CEFD

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AMUB returned 12.50%/yr vs 3.42%/yr for CEFD. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for CEFD.

Performance

AMUB vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 17.24% return, which is significantly higher than CEFD's 7.31% return.

AMUB

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -1.02%
• YTD: 17.24%
• 6M: 16.74%
• 1Y: 17.83%
• 3Y*: 15.89%
• 5Y*: 12.50%
• 10Y*: 3.08%

CEFD

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 2.90%
• YTD: 7.31%
• 6M: 8.16%
• 1Y: 19.84%
• 3Y*: 15.98%
• 5Y*: 3.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

AMUB vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	17.24%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	28.83%	-9.01%
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	7.31%	14.15%	20.06%	8.36%	-28.93%	22.09%	21.81%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and CEFD is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.42

The correlation between AMUB and CEFD shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (1 year) to 0.42 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 35
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 34
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 33

CEFD

CEFD Risk / Return Rank: 43
CEFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
CEFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
CEFD Omega Ratio Rank: 49
CEFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
CEFD Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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.

AMUB vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). 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.

	AMUB	CEFD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	1.56	-0.23
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	2.19	-0.31
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.31	-0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	1.61	+0.13
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.17	7.52	-2.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMUB vs. CEFD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMUB Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is comparable to the CEFD Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMUB and CEFD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMUB	CEFD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.32	1.56	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.19	+0.43
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.00	0.53	-0.52

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. CEFD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than CEFD's maximum drawdown of -36.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and CEFD.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	CEFD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-36.95%	-42.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-12.51%	+2.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.22%	-21.76%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.58%	-36.95%	+16.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.94%	-0.16%	-5.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.23%	-11.73%	-17.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	2.68%	+0.81%

Volatility

AMUB vs. CEFD - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) has a higher volatility of 5.50% compared to ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) at 3.98%. This indicates that AMUB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	CEFD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.50%	3.98%	+1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.84%	11.23%	-1.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.61%	12.81%	+0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	17.92%	+2.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.09%	17.31%	+9.78%

AMUB vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison

AMUB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	14.44%	14.88%	13.90%	14.76%	16.56%	10.31%	5.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and CEFD in my portfolio?

AMUB and CEFD have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMUB or CEFD?

AMUB has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to CEFD (3.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs CEFD's -36.95%.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or CEFD?

On 5-year performance, AMUB leads with 12.50% vs 3.42% for CEFD. On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 3.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMUB or CEFD?

Over the 5-year period, AMUB has performed better with a 12.50% return vs 3.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or CEFD?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for CEFD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMUB or CEFD?

CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.44%, compared with 0.00% for AMUB.

What is the main difference between AMUB and CEFD?

AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.95% for CEFD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 1.32), 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.