AMUB vs. RONB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and RONB (Baron First Principles ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while RONB is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Baron Capital. AMUB is passively managed, while RONB is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for RONB.

Performance

AMUB vs. RONB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and Baron First Principles ETF (RONB). 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 RONB's -2.67% 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%

RONB

• 1D: -1.62%
• 1M: 4.69%
• YTD: -2.67%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AMUB vs. RONB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	17.24%	-1.03%
RONB Baron First Principles ETF	-2.67%	-0.33%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and RONB is -0.19, 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 Dec 16, 2025	-0.19

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. RONB — 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

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. RONB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) and Baron First Principles ETF (RONB). 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	RONB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	—	—
Martin ratio Return 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMUB	RONB	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	-0.38	+0.39

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. RONB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than RONB's maximum drawdown of -13.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and RONB.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	RONB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-13.08%	-66.38%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.94%	-4.74%	-1.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.23%	-6.34%	-22.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	RONB	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%	16.85%	-3.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	16.85%	+3.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.09%	16.85%	+10.24%

AMUB vs. RONB - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than RONB's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. RONB - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMUB nor RONB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and RONB in my portfolio?

AMUB and RONB have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or RONB?

On fees, AMUB is cheaper at 0.80% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or RONB?

AMUB is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for RONB.

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

AMUB and RONB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between AMUB and RONB?

AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while RONB is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Baron Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 1.00% for RONB.