FTMN vs. UCO
FTMN (Franklin Minnesota Municipal Income ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - FTMN is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Actively Managed, while UCO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.29, they often move in opposite directions. FTMN charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.
Performance
FTMN vs. UCO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTMN achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 81.88% return.
FTMN
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 1.99%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 2.21%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
UCO
- 1D
- -1.26%
- 1M
- -25.61%
- YTD
- 81.88%
- 6M
- 76.32%
- 1Y
- 42.04%
- 3Y*
- 15.38%
- 5Y*
- 12.42%
- 10Y*
- 19.46%
FTMN vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FTMN Franklin Minnesota Municipal Income ETF | 1.81% | 0.27% |
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 81.88% | -8.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTMN and UCO is -0.29, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2025 | -0.29 |
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
FTMN vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank
FTMN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
UCO
FTMN vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Minnesota Municipal Income ETF (FTMN) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). 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.
| FTMN | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.16 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.30 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2.61 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FTMN vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTMN drawdown since its inception was -3.10%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTMN and UCO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTMN | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.10% | -99.86% | +96.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -32.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -50.38% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -67.24% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -96.50% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.13% | -85.89% | +85.76% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.69% | -82.11% | +81.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 16.23% | — |
Volatility
FTMN vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTMN | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 16.11% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 48.06% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.15% | 57.57% | -53.42% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.15% | 60.09% | -55.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.15% | 317.77% | -313.62% |
FTMN vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison
FTMN has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
FTMN vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison
FTMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
FTMN Franklin Minnesota Municipal Income ETF | 1.83% | 0.50% |
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FTMN and UCO 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.
On fees, FTMN is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTMN is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.
FTMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.
FTMN is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while UCO is Oil & Gas. FTMN tracks Actively Managed, while UCO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FTMN and 0.95% for UCO.
Find the right allocation for FTMN and UCO
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