EINC vs. UMI
EINC (VanEck Energy Income ETF) and UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. EINC is passively managed, while UMI is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, EINC returned 20.73%/yr vs 20.29%/yr for UMI. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EINC charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for UMI.
Performance
EINC vs. UMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EINC achieves a 24.74% return, which is significantly higher than UMI's 22.52% return.
EINC
- 1D
- -0.39%
- 1M
- -1.60%
- YTD
- 24.74%
- 6M
- 24.40%
- 1Y
- 26.00%
- 3Y*
- 29.18%
- 5Y*
- 20.73%
- 10Y*
- 11.62%
UMI
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- -1.04%
- YTD
- 22.52%
- 6M
- 22.06%
- 1Y
- 23.91%
- 3Y*
- 27.26%
- 5Y*
- 20.29%
- 10Y*
- —
EINC vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF | 24.74% | 7.11% | 42.79% | 15.55% | 19.18% | 38.05% | -19.89% | 16.98% | -19.85% | 2.41% |
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 22.52% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 14.60% | 20.78% | 20.97% | -8.25% | 21.06% | -10.64% | 2.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between EINC and UMI is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2017 | 0.77 |
The correlation between EINC and UMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (all time) to 0.96 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
EINC vs. UMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EINC
UMI
Energy
Industrials
-
Utilities
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
-
Energy
EINC
UMI
Industrials
EINC
UMI
-
Utilities
EINC
UMI
Basic Materials
EINC
-
UMI
-
Communication Services
EINC
-
UMI
-
Consumer Cyclical
EINC
-
UMI
-
Consumer Defensive
EINC
-
UMI
-
Financial Services
EINC
-
UMI
-
Healthcare
EINC
-
UMI
-
Real Estate
EINC
-
UMI
-
Technology
EINC
-
UMI
-
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
EINC vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank
EINC
UMI
EINC vs. UMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). 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.
| EINC | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.30 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.31 | 3.20 | +0.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.18 | 8.90 | +0.28 |
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
| EINC | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.78 | 1.71 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.07 | 1.04 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.04 | 0.62 | -0.59 |
Drawdowns
EINC vs. UMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EINC drawdown since its inception was -87.55%, which is greater than UMI's maximum drawdown of -48.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EINC and UMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EINC | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.55% | -48.08% | -39.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.89% | -7.50% | -0.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.01% | -17.08% | +1.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.87% | -20.05% | +0.18% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -68.85% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.44% | -4.76% | -0.68% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -44.29% | -6.60% | -37.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.85% | 2.70% | +0.15% |
Volatility
EINC vs. UMI - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) has a higher volatility of 6.39% compared to USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) at 5.94%. This indicates that EINC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EINC | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.39% | 5.94% | +0.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.57% | 10.98% | +0.59% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.72% | 14.04% | +0.68% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.58% | 19.55% | +0.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.43% | 23.20% | +2.23% |
EINC vs. UMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
EINC has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than UMI's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
EINC vs. UMI - Dividend Comparison
EINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.55%, less than UMI's 5.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF | 3.55% | 4.51% | 3.33% | 3.77% | 2.89% | 6.03% | 6.69% | 9.66% | 11.31% | 8.53% | 9.71% | 28.53% |
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 5.98% | 6.23% | 4.39% | 4.67% | 4.36% | 3.00% | 2.18% | 2.47% | 2.48% | 0.15% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, EINC and UMI move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
EINC has higher volatility (6.39%) compared to UMI (5.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EINC dropped -87.55% vs UMI's -48.08%.
On 5-year performance, EINC leads with 20.73% vs 20.29% for UMI. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, UMI has been the lower-risk option at 5.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, EINC has performed better with a 20.73% return vs 20.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.98%, compared with 3.55% for EINC.
They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EINC and 0.85% for UMI.
EINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.71), 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.
Find the right allocation for EINC and UMI
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