GDOC vs. UCO
GDOC (Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - GDOC is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while UCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). GDOC is actively managed, while UCO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GDOC returned 0.05%/yr vs 25.90%/yr for UCO. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. GDOC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.
Performance
GDOC vs. UCO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GDOC achieves a -7.76% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 149.12% return.
GDOC
- 1D
- 0.41%
- 1M
- 1.93%
- YTD
- -7.76%
- 6M
- -9.87%
- 1Y
- 5.18%
- 3Y*
- 0.05%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
UCO
- 1D
- 2.71%
- 1M
- -4.64%
- YTD
- 149.12%
- 6M
- 137.09%
- 1Y
- 120.48%
- 3Y*
- 25.90%
- 5Y*
- 22.16%
- 10Y*
- -11.31%
GDOC vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF | -7.76% | 10.74% | -1.66% | 4.60% | -17.12% | -2.77% |
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 149.12% | -29.75% | 5.36% | -13.89% | 39.71% | -7.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between GDOC and UCO is -0.35, 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 | -0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.17 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2021 | -0.05 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between GDOC and UCO has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.05 to -0.35, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
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
GDOC vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank
GDOC
UCO
GDOC vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) 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.
| GDOC | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.32 | -0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.33 | 3.49 | -3.15 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.76 | 6.60 | -5.84 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GDOC | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 | 2.12 | -1.79 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.37 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | -0.16 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.19 | -0.34 | +0.15 |
Drawdowns
GDOC vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GDOC drawdown since its inception was -31.01%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDOC and UCO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GDOC | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.01% | -99.95% | +68.94% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.67% | -34.77% | +19.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.51% | -50.38% | +27.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -67.24% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -98.75% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.53% | -99.23% | +83.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.90% | -85.49% | +69.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.83% | 18.33% | -11.50% |
Volatility
GDOC vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF (GDOC) is 4.90%, while ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a volatility of 20.83%. This indicates that GDOC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UCO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GDOC | UCO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.90% | 20.83% | -15.93% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.61% | 46.44% | -34.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.64% | 57.11% | -41.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.79% | 59.78% | -40.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.79% | 71.36% | -52.57% |
GDOC vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison
GDOC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
GDOC vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison
GDOC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GDOC Goldman Sachs Future Health Care Equity ETF | 0.35% | 0.32% | 0.02% | 0.55% | 0.00% |
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GDOC and UCO have a correlation of -0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UCO has higher volatility (20.83%) compared to GDOC (4.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDOC dropped -31.01% vs UCO's -99.95%.
On 3-year performance, UCO leads with 25.90% vs 0.05% for GDOC. On fees, GDOC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GDOC has been the lower-risk option at 4.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, UCO has performed better with a 25.90% return vs 0.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GDOC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.
GDOC has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.
GDOC is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while UCO is Leveraged Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GDOC and 0.95% for UCO.
UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.33), 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.
Find the right allocation for GDOC 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