AMUB vs. UCIB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) and UCIB (ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B) are both exchange-traded funds - AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index, while UCIB is a Commodities fund tracking the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AMUB returned 2.79%/yr vs 9.99%/yr for UCIB. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMUB charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for UCIB.

Performance

AMUB vs. UCIB - 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 CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMUB achieves a 14.01% return, which is significantly lower than UCIB's 17.40% return. Over the past 10 years, AMUB has underperformed UCIB with an annualized return of 2.79%, while UCIB has yielded a comparatively higher 9.99% annualized return.

AMUB

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: -7.94%
• YTD: 14.01%
• 6M: 13.63%
• 1Y: 13.10%
• 3Y*: 15.44%
• 5Y*: 11.55%
• 10Y*: 2.79%

UCIB

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -5.98%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 17.51%
• 1Y: 22.65%
• 3Y*: 11.68%
• 5Y*: 11.67%
• 10Y*: 9.99%

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

AMUB vs. UCIB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	14.01%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	28.83%	-36.47%	-1.78%	-19.25%	-13.07%
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	17.40%	8.97%	6.58%	-2.26%	18.24%	37.34%	1.10%	10.86%	-9.48%	5.85%

Correlation

The correlation between AMUB and UCIB is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.23
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2015	0.31

Return for Risk

AMUB vs. UCIB — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 27
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 26
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 26

UCIB

UCIB Risk / Return Rank: 27
UCIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
UCIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
UCIB Omega Ratio Rank: 35
UCIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
UCIB Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. UCIB - 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 CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AMUB	UCIB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.96	0.70	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.40	1.13	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.22	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.24	1.28	-0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.36	3.95	-0.59

AMUB vs. UCIB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMUB Sharpe Ratio is 0.96, which is higher than the UCIB Sharpe Ratio of 0.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMUB and UCIB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AMUB vs. UCIB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMUB drawdown since its inception was -79.46%, which is greater than UCIB's maximum drawdown of -51.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMUB and UCIB.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMUB	UCIB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.46%	-51.29%	-28.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.69%	-17.82%	+7.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.22%	-17.82%	+0.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.58%	-20.95%	+0.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.86%	-36.94%	-41.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.53%	-17.82%	+9.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.11%	-21.03%	-8.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.92%	5.76%	-1.84%

Volatility

AMUB vs. UCIB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) is 5.28%, while ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) has a volatility of 7.47%. This indicates that AMUB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UCIB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMUB	UCIB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.28%	7.47%	-2.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.09%	31.71%	-21.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.85%	32.37%	-18.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.12%	26.86%	-6.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.13%	23.33%	+3.80%

AMUB vs. UCIB - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMUB has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than UCIB's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMUB vs. UCIB - Dividend Comparison

Neither AMUB nor UCIB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMUB and UCIB in my portfolio?

AMUB and UCIB have a correlation of 0.29, 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 UCIB?

UCIB has higher volatility (7.47%) compared to AMUB (5.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMUB dropped -79.46% vs UCIB's -51.29%.

Which ETF is better, AMUB or UCIB?

On 10-year performance, UCIB leads with 9.99% vs 2.79% for AMUB. On fees, UCIB is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, AMUB has been the lower-risk option at 5.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMUB or UCIB?

Over the 10-year period, UCIB has performed better with a 9.99% return vs 2.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMUB or UCIB?

UCIB is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AMUB.

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

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

What is the main difference between AMUB and UCIB?

AMUB is categorized as MLPs, while UCIB is Commodities. AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index, while UCIB tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for AMUB and 0.55% for UCIB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.96 vs 0.70), 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.