GLDB vs. UCO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GLDB (Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDB is a Nontraditional Bonds fund tracking the Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while UCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. GLDB charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

GLDB vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDB achieves a -7.90% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 139.34% return.

GLDB

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: -8.42%
• YTD: -7.90%
• 6M: -5.61%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UCO

• 1D: -3.93%
• 1M: -5.57%
• YTD: 139.34%
• 6M: 124.58%
• 1Y: 115.57%
• 3Y*: 24.38%
• 5Y*: 21.18%
• 10Y*: -11.98%

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

GLDB vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	-7.90%	-3.51%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	139.34%	-10.18%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDB and UCO is -0.10, 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 Oct 27, 2025	-0.10

Return for Risk

GLDB vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 54
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 51
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

GLDB vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF (GLDB) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLDB	UCO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.03	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.36	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	-0.17	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.45	-0.34	-0.10

Drawdowns

GLDB vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDB drawdown since its inception was -27.36%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDB and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDB	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.36%	-99.95%	+72.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-34.77%	—
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	—	-98.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.71%	-99.26%	+72.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.52%	-85.49%	+71.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	18.34%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GLDB	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	20.99%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	46.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.82%	57.26%	-17.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.82%	59.81%	-19.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.82%	71.35%	-31.53%

GLDB vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDB has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDB vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

GLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
GLDB Strategy Shares Gold-Hedged Bond ETF	0.21%	0.19%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDB and UCO in my portfolio?

GLDB and UCO have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLDB or UCO?

On fees, GLDB is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDB or UCO?

GLDB is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLDB or UCO?

GLDB has the higher dividend yield at 0.21%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

What is the main difference between GLDB and UCO?

GLDB is categorized as Nontraditional Bonds, while UCO is Leveraged Commodities. GLDB tracks Solactive Gold Backed Bond Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while UCO tracks Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Strategy Shares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLDB and 0.95% for UCO.