FLAO vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLAO (AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - FLAO is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by Allianz, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. FLAO is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, FLAO returned 4.33% vs 80.94% for UGA. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. FLAO charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

FLAO vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLAO achieves a -0.85% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 75.49% return.

FLAO

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: -0.85%
• 6M: -0.46%
• 1Y: 4.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -12.35%
• YTD: 75.49%
• 6M: 64.35%
• 1Y: 80.94%
• 3Y*: 22.21%
• 5Y*: 25.10%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

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

FLAO vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLAO AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF	-0.85%	3.38%	10.02%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	75.49%	-2.00%	-11.03%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAO and UGA is -0.27, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2024	-0.06

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between FLAO and UGA has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.06 to -0.27, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

Return for Risk

FLAO vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLAO

FLAO Risk / Return Rank: 22
FLAO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FLAO Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLAO Omega Ratio Rank: 27
FLAO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FLAO Martin Ratio Rank: 21

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 69
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

FLAO vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.

	FLAO	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	2.32	-1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.06	2.75	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.37	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.57	5.47	-4.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.41	13.25	-10.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLAO vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAO Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAO and UGA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLAO	UGA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76	2.32	-1.55
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	0.12	+0.64

Drawdowns

FLAO vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAO drawdown since its inception was -10.12%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAO and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLAO	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.12%	-86.59%	+76.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.60%	-14.88%	+7.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.07%	-12.35%	+10.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.90%	-36.76%	+34.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.80%	6.13%	-4.33%

Volatility

FLAO vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM U.S. Equity 6 Month Floor5 Apr/Oct ETF (FLAO) is 0.32%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 11.66%. This indicates that FLAO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLAO	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.32%	11.66%	-11.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.15%	30.41%	-25.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.69%	35.14%	-29.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.50%	34.38%	-26.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.50%	37.27%	-29.77%

FLAO vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLAO has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLAO vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLAO nor UGA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLAO and UGA in my portfolio?

FLAO and UGA have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLAO or UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (11.66%) compared to FLAO (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAO dropped -10.12% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, FLAO or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 80.94% vs 4.33% for FLAO. On fees, FLAO is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, FLAO has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLAO or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 80.94% return vs 4.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLAO or UGA?

FLAO is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLAO or UGA?

FLAO and UGA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FLAO and UGA?

FLAO is categorized as Defined Outcome, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FLAO and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.76), 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.