LFAO vs. UCO

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LFAO (LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - LFAO is a Government Bonds fund actively managed by Stone Ridge, while UCO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). LFAO is actively managed, while UCO is passively managed. Over the past year, LFAO returned 3.55% vs 27.70% for UCO. At a correlation of -0.29, they often move in opposite directions. LFAO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

LFAO vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF (LFAO) 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, LFAO achieves a 0.08% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 84.21% return.

LFAO

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 0.08%
• 6M: 0.11%
• 1Y: 3.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UCO

• 1D: -2.87%
• 1M: -24.66%
• YTD: 84.21%
• 6M: 80.57%
• 1Y: 27.70%
• 3Y*: 15.87%
• 5Y*: 12.83%
• 10Y*: 19.62%

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

LFAO vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFAO LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF	0.08%	5.65%	-8.36%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	84.21%	-29.75%	10.00%

Correlation

The correlation between LFAO and UCO is -0.39, 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	-0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2024	-0.29

The correlation between LFAO and UCO shifts across timeframes, from -0.39 (1 year) to -0.29 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LFAO vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFAO

LFAO Risk / Return Rank: 15
LFAO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
LFAO Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
LFAO Omega Ratio Rank: 14
LFAO Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
LFAO Martin Ratio Rank: 16

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 18
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 18
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

LFAO vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF (LFAO) 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.

	LFAO	UCO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.52	0.48	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	1.01	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.12	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	0.87	-0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.58	1.72	-0.15

LFAO vs. UCO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFAO Sharpe Ratio is 0.52, which is comparable to the UCO Sharpe Ratio of 0.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFAO and UCO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LFAO vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFAO drawdown since its inception was -10.12%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFAO and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFAO	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.12%	-99.86%	+89.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.86%	-31.96%	+26.10%
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	-3.18%	-85.71%	+82.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-82.11%	+77.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.26%	18.90%	-16.64%

Volatility

LFAO vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF (LFAO) is 1.72%, while ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a volatility of 16.18%. This indicates that LFAO 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.

Volatility by Period

	LFAO	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.72%	16.18%	-14.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.04%	48.09%	-43.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.87%	57.66%	-50.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.05%	60.09%	-52.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.05%	317.79%	-309.74%

LFAO vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFAO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFAO vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

LFAO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.95%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LFAO LifeX 2055 Longevity Income ETF	10.95%	14.33%	1.64%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFAO and UCO in my portfolio?

LFAO and UCO have a correlation of -0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFAO or UCO?

UCO has higher volatility (16.18%) compared to LFAO (1.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFAO dropped -10.12% vs UCO's -99.86%.

Which ETF is better, LFAO or UCO?

On 1-year performance, UCO leads with 27.70% vs 3.55% for LFAO. On fees, LFAO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LFAO has been the lower-risk option at 1.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFAO or UCO?

Over the 1-year period, UCO has performed better with a 27.70% return vs 3.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFAO or UCO?

LFAO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

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

LFAO has the higher dividend yield at 10.95%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

What is the main difference between LFAO and UCO?

LFAO is categorized as Government Bonds, while UCO is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Stone Ridge and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for LFAO and 0.95% for UCO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LFAO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.52 vs 0.48), 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.