GSGO vs. UCO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GSGO (Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - GSGO is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Goldman Sachs, while UCO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). GSGO is actively managed, while UCO is passively managed. Their -0.29 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GSGO charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

GSGO vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF (GSGO) 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, GSGO achieves a 6.78% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 109.21% return.

GSGO

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: -2.59%
• 6M: 7.57%
• YTD: 6.78%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

UCO

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: 24.87%
• 6M: 67.72%
• YTD: 109.21%
• 1Y: 66.00%
• 3Y*: 9.81%
• 5Y*: 15.14%
• 10Y*: 26.28%
• ALL TIME*: -9.20%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GSGO Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF	$292.33K	$361.30K	$297.31K
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	$134.26M	$138.13M	$153.19M

GSGO vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GSGO Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF	6.78%	0.81%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	109.21%	-7.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GSGO and UCO is -0.29, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2025	-0.29

Return for Risk

GSGO vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GSGO

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

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 39
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 39
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GSGO vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF (GSGO) 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.

	GSGO	UCO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.94	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.52	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.19	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.46	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	3.75	—

Drawdowns

GSGO vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSGO drawdown since its inception was -13.88%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSGO and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSGO	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.88%	-99.86%	+85.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-38.55%	—
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.75%	-83.77%	+78.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.26%	-82.13%	+78.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	17.30%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GSGO	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	22.33%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	51.79%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.69%	60.01%	-40.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.69%	60.46%	-40.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.69%	317.65%	-297.96%

GSGO vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSGO has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSGO vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

Neither GSGO nor UCO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSGO and UCO in my portfolio?

GSGO 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.

Which ETF is better, GSGO or UCO?

On fees, GSGO is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSGO or UCO?

GSGO is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

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

GSGO and UCO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GSGO and UCO?

GSGO is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while UCO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GSGO and 0.95% for UCO.