ICVT vs. UGA
ICVT (iShares Convertible Bond ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - ICVT is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Barclays U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICVT returned 13.99%/yr vs 14.43%/yr for UGA. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICVT charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.
Performance
ICVT vs. UGA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICVT achieves a 25.28% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 75.49% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with ICVT having a 13.99% annualized return and UGA not far ahead at 14.43%.
ICVT
- 1D
- -0.97%
- 1M
- 7.16%
- YTD
- 25.28%
- 6M
- 24.31%
- 1Y
- 42.20%
- 3Y*
- 21.04%
- 5Y*
- 7.79%
- 10Y*
- 13.99%
UGA
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- -12.35%
- YTD
- 75.49%
- 6M
- 64.35%
- 1Y
- 80.94%
- 3Y*
- 22.21%
- 5Y*
- 25.10%
- 10Y*
- 14.43%
ICVT vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 25.28% | 18.10% | 10.61% | 15.35% | -20.66% | -0.66% | 61.01% | 21.76% | -0.27% | 16.38% |
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP | 75.49% | -2.00% | 3.77% | 1.27% | 46.34% | 68.49% | -24.88% | 41.25% | -28.07% | 1.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICVT and UGA is -0.17, 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 | -0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2015 | 0.16 |
The correlation between ICVT and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to 0.16 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
ICVT vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank
ICVT
UGA
ICVT vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.
| ICVT | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | 1.37 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.62 | 5.47 | +0.15 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 20.48 | 13.25 | +7.23 |
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
| ICVT | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.95 | 2.32 | +0.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 | 0.73 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.91 | 0.39 | +0.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.78 | 0.12 | +0.66 |
Drawdowns
ICVT vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICVT drawdown since its inception was -33.25%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICVT and UGA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICVT | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.25% | -86.59% | +53.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.55% | -14.88% | +7.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.22% | -26.68% | +15.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.95% | -38.11% | +8.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.25% | -75.89% | +42.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.97% | -12.35% | +11.38% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.50% | -36.76% | +27.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.07% | 6.13% | -4.06% |
Volatility
ICVT vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Convertible Bond ETF (ICVT) is 5.53%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 11.66%. This indicates that ICVT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICVT | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.53% | 11.66% | -6.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.69% | 30.41% | -18.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.36% | 35.14% | -20.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.23% | 34.38% | -21.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.50% | 37.27% | -21.77% |
ICVT vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICVT has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
ICVT vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison
ICVT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICVT iShares Convertible Bond ETF | 1.30% | 1.73% | 2.19% | 1.85% | 1.93% | 7.70% | 3.98% | 1.86% | 4.82% | 2.56% | 3.06% | 1.57% |
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICVT and UGA have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UGA has higher volatility (11.66%) compared to ICVT (5.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICVT dropped -33.25% vs UGA's -86.59%.
On 10-year performance, UGA leads with 14.43% vs 13.99% for ICVT. On fees, ICVT is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ICVT has been the lower-risk option at 5.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, UGA has performed better with a 14.43% return vs 13.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ICVT is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.
ICVT has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.
ICVT is categorized as Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds, while UGA is Oil & Gas. ICVT tracks Barclays U.S. Convertible Cash Pay Bond > $250MM Index, while UGA tracks Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ICVT and 0.75% for UGA.
ICVT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.95 vs 2.32), 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 ICVT and UGA
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