FTOH vs. AMUB
FTOH (Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF) and AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) are both exchange-traded funds - FTOH is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Actively Managed, while AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. FTOH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for AMUB.
Performance
FTOH vs. AMUB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTOH achieves a 2.43% return, which is significantly lower than AMUB's 11.87% return.
FTOH
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 1.79%
- YTD
- 2.43%
- 6M
- 2.49%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AMUB
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- -9.67%
- YTD
- 11.87%
- 6M
- 11.94%
- 1Y
- 10.22%
- 3Y*
- 14.71%
- 5Y*
- 11.11%
- 10Y*
- 2.59%
FTOH vs. AMUB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.43% | 0.08% |
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 11.87% | 0.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTOH and AMUB is -0.14, 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 | -0.14 |
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
FTOH vs. AMUB — Risk / Return Rank
FTOH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
AMUB
FTOH vs. AMUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF (FTOH) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). 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.
| FTOH | AMUB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.13 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.96 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2.64 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FTOH vs. AMUB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTOH drawdown since its inception was -2.59%, smaller than the maximum AMUB drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTOH and AMUB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTOH | AMUB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.59% | -79.46% | +76.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -10.69% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -17.22% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.58% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -78.86% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.06% | -10.25% | +10.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.53% | -29.12% | +28.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.89% | — |
Volatility
FTOH vs. AMUB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTOH | AMUB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.72% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 9.95% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.58% | 13.75% | -10.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.58% | 20.11% | -16.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.58% | 27.12% | -23.54% |
FTOH vs. AMUB - Expense Ratio Comparison
FTOH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than AMUB's 0.80% expense ratio.
Dividends
FTOH vs. AMUB - Dividend Comparison
FTOH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.17%, while AMUB has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.17% | 0.56% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FTOH and AMUB have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FTOH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTOH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AMUB.
FTOH has the higher dividend yield at 2.17%, compared with 0.00% for AMUB.
FTOH is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while AMUB is MLPs. FTOH tracks Actively Managed, while AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FTOH and 0.80% for AMUB.
Find the right allocation for FTOH and AMUB
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