EINC vs. UMI

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

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 22.84%/yr vs 22.63%/yr for UMI. A 0.78 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

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EINC achieves a 29.47% return, which is significantly higher than UMI's 27.58% return.

EINC

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 2.44%
• 6M: 29.19%
• YTD: 29.47%
• 1Y: 31.88%
• 3Y*: 28.91%
• 5Y*: 22.84%
• 10Y*: 11.83%

UMI

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: 2.89%
• 6M: 26.62%
• YTD: 27.58%
• 1Y: 30.03%
• 3Y*: 27.59%
• 5Y*: 22.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

EINC vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	29.47%	7.11%	42.79%	15.55%	19.18%	38.05%	-19.89%	16.98%	-19.85%	3.09%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	27.58%	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 Nov 30, 2017	0.78

The correlation between EINC and UMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.78 (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	99.4%	99.0%
Industrials	0.6%	-
Utilities	0.6%	1.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

EINC vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

EINC

EINC Risk / Return Rank: 80
EINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
EINC Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EINC Martin Ratio Rank: 69

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 79
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 76
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

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.

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.

	EINC	UMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.07	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.87	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.36	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.06	4.02	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.98	10.14	-0.15

EINC vs. UMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EINC Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the UMI Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EINC and UMI, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EINC	UMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	-0.83%	-1.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-44.00%	-6.56%	-37.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	2.97%	+0.23%

Volatility

EINC vs. UMI - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) has a higher volatility of 6.02% compared to USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) at 5.33%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	EINC	UMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.02%	5.33%	+0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.31%	11.39%	+0.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.40%	14.59%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.57%	19.46%	+0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.34%	23.13%	+2.21%

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 3.42%, less than UMI's 5.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	3.42%	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	5.76%	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

Can I hold both EINC and UMI in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, EINC or UMI?

EINC has higher volatility (6.02%) compared to UMI (5.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EINC dropped -87.55% vs UMI's -48.08%.

Which ETF is better, EINC or UMI?

On 5-year performance, EINC leads with 22.84% vs 22.63% for UMI. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, UMI has been the lower-risk option at 5.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EINC or UMI?

Over the 5-year period, EINC has performed better with a 22.84% return vs 22.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EINC or UMI?

EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EINC or UMI?

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.76%, compared with 3.42% for EINC.

What is the main difference between EINC and UMI?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EINC and 0.85% for UMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 2.07), 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.