HARD vs. USE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HARD (Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF) and USE (USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund) are both Commodities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HARD returned 13.00%/yr vs 17.85%/yr for USE. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HARD charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for USE.

Performance

HARD vs. USE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) and USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HARD achieves a 14.81% return, which is significantly lower than USE's 48.69% return.

HARD

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -9.01%
• YTD: 14.81%
• 6M: 14.73%
• 1Y: 24.26%
• 3Y*: 13.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

USE

• 1D: 2.75%
• 1M: -2.96%
• YTD: 48.69%
• 6M: 51.72%
• 1Y: 41.25%
• 3Y*: 17.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HARD vs. USE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	14.81%	12.19%	20.48%	-6.60%
USE USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund	48.69%	-14.97%	22.58%	9.98%

Correlation

The correlation between HARD and USE is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2023	0.30

The correlation between HARD and USE shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.50 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HARD vs. USE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HARD	USE
Financial Services	26.7%	23.5%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HARD vs. USE — Risk / Return Rank

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

HARD

HARD Risk / Return Rank: 29
HARD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
HARD Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
HARD Omega Ratio Rank: 25
HARD Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
HARD Martin Ratio Rank: 31

USE

USE Risk / Return Rank: 33
USE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
USE Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
USE Omega Ratio Rank: 35
USE Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
USE Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

HARD vs. USE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) and USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE). 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.

	HARD	USE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.92	1.32	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.29	1.94	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.23	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	1.58	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.51	3.10	+1.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HARD vs. USE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HARD Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the USE Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HARD and USE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HARD	USE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92	1.32	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.70	-0.02

Drawdowns

HARD vs. USE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HARD drawdown since its inception was -13.51%, smaller than the maximum USE drawdown of -26.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HARD and USE.

Drawdown Indicators

	HARD	USE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.51%	-26.24%	+12.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.38%	-26.24%	+13.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.51%	-26.24%	+12.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.38%	-4.44%	-5.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.47%	-7.96%	+2.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.39%	13.32%	-7.93%

Volatility

HARD vs. USE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (HARD) is 8.11%, while USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE) has a volatility of 11.11%. This indicates that HARD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HARD	USE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.11%	11.11%	-3.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.64%	25.86%	-4.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.47%	31.46%	-4.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.09%	27.06%	-7.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.09%	27.06%	-7.97%

HARD vs. USE - Expense Ratio Comparison

HARD has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than USE's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

HARD vs. USE - Dividend Comparison

HARD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, more than USE's 2.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
HARD Simplify Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	2.61%	2.36%	3.51%	1.95%
USE USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund	2.06%	3.06%	38.65%	4.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HARD and USE in my portfolio?

HARD and USE have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HARD or USE?

USE has higher volatility (11.11%) compared to HARD (8.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HARD dropped -13.51% vs USE's -26.24%.

Which ETF is better, HARD or USE?

On 3-year performance, USE leads with 17.85% vs 13.00% for HARD. On fees, HARD is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, HARD has been the lower-risk option at 8.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HARD or USE?

Over the 3-year period, USE has performed better with a 17.85% return vs 13.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HARD or USE?

HARD is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for USE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HARD or USE?

HARD has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 2.06% for USE.

What is the main difference between HARD and USE?

They also come from different issuers: Simplify and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for HARD and 0.79% for USE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.92), 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.