FAAR vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust, while ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. FAAR is actively managed, while ZSB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FAAR returned 10.03%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FAAR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

FAAR vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FAAR achieves a 17.40% return, which is significantly higher than ZSB's 1.95% return.

FAAR

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: -6.59%
• YTD: 17.40%
• 6M: 17.10%
• 1Y: 28.26%
• 3Y*: 10.03%
• 5Y*: 7.50%
• 10Y*: 4.54%

ZSB

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: -10.01%
• YTD: 1.95%
• 6M: 2.81%
• 1Y: 55.33%
• 3Y*: 1.10%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FAAR vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	17.40%	8.07%	5.97%	-4.93%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	1.95%	64.34%	-19.70%	-31.38%

Correlation

The correlation between FAAR and ZSB is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.10

Return for Risk

FAAR vs. ZSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 77
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 82

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 69
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 76
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

FAAR vs. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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.

	FAAR	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.09	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.08	2.55	+0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.39	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.71	3.32	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.66	8.77	+5.89

FAAR vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAAR and ZSB, 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

FAAR vs. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAAR drawdown since its inception was -18.03%, smaller than the maximum ZSB drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAAR and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAAR	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.03%	-49.26%	+31.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.66%	-16.75%	+9.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.54%	-43.22%	+31.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-18.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.66%	-14.04%	+6.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.82%	-30.57%	+22.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.93%	6.33%	-4.40%

Volatility

FAAR vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) is 2.82%, while USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) has a volatility of 5.91%. This indicates that FAAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FAAR	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.82%	5.91%	-3.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.80%	22.43%	-12.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.30%	26.63%	-13.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.97%	19.65%	-6.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.55%	19.65%	-8.10%

FAAR vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAAR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FAAR vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

FAAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.80%, more than ZSB's 0.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.80%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.90%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FAAR and ZSB in my portfolio?

FAAR and ZSB have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAAR or ZSB?

ZSB has higher volatility (5.91%) compared to FAAR (2.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAAR dropped -18.03% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, FAAR or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, FAAR leads with 10.03% vs 1.10% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, FAAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAAR or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 10.03% return vs 1.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAAR or ZSB?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FAAR or ZSB?

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.80%, compared with 0.90% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between FAAR and ZSB?

FAAR is categorized as Commodities, while ZSB is Lithium & Battery Metals. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FAAR and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 2.09), 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.