AMUB vs. FTOH
AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and FTOH (Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while FTOH is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for FTOH.
Performance
AMUB vs. FTOH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 17.24% return, which is significantly higher than FTOH's 2.19% 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%
FTOH
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 0.82%
- YTD
- 2.19%
- 6M
- 2.47%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AMUB vs. FTOH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 17.24% | -0.10% |
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.19% | 0.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between AMUB and FTOH is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2025 | -0.17 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
AMUB vs. FTOH — Risk / Return Rank
AMUB
FTOH
AMUB vs. FTOH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF (FTOH). 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 | FTOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.32 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.88 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.74 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.17 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AMUB | FTOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.32 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.62 | — | — |
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 | 1.20 | -1.20 |
Drawdowns
AMUB vs. FTOH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than FTOH's maximum drawdown of -2.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and FTOH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AMUB | FTOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -79.46% | -2.59% | -76.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.37% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.22% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.58% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.86% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.94% | 0.00% | -5.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -29.23% | -0.58% | -28.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.49% | — | — |
Volatility
AMUB vs. FTOH - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AMUB | FTOH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.50% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.84% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.61% | 3.66% | +9.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.24% | 3.66% | +16.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.09% | 3.66% | +23.43% |
AMUB vs. FTOH - Expense Ratio Comparison
AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than FTOH's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
AMUB vs. FTOH - Dividend Comparison
AMUB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FTOH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.18% | 0.56% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AMUB and FTOH have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FTOH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTOH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AMUB.
FTOH has the higher dividend yield at 2.18%, compared with 0.00% for AMUB.
AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while FTOH is Municipal Bonds. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while FTOH tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.35% for FTOH.
Find the right allocation for AMUB and FTOH
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