LFDR vs. UCO

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

LFDR (LifeX Durable Income ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - LFDR 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%). LFDR is actively managed, while UCO is passively managed. Over the past year, LFDR returned -1.91% vs 66.00% for UCO. Their -0.32 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. LFDR charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

LFDR vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) 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, LFDR achieves a -3.22% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 109.21% return.

LFDR

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: -3.47%
• 6M: -3.17%
• YTD: -3.22%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -0.13%

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)
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	$1.83K	$1.96K	$2.51K
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	$134.26M	$138.13M	$153.19M

LFDR vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	-3.22%	4.82%	-1.64%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	109.21%	-29.75%	1.89%

Correlation

The correlation between LFDR and UCO is -0.39, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2024	-0.32

Return for Risk

LFDR vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFDR

LFDR Risk / Return Rank: 9
LFDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
LFDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LFDR Omega Ratio Rank: 9
LFDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
LFDR Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

LFDR vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) 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.

	LFDR	UCO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.08	0.94	-1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.06	1.52	-1.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.19	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.10	1.46	-1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	3.75	-3.97

LFDR vs. UCO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFDR Sharpe Ratio is -0.08, which is lower than the UCO Sharpe Ratio of 0.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFDR 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

LFDR vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFDR drawdown since its inception was -7.77%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFDR and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFDR	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.77%	-99.86%	+92.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.84%	-38.55%	+31.71%
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	-6.84%	-83.77%	+76.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.07%	-82.13%	+79.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	17.30%	-14.24%

Volatility

LFDR vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LifeX Durable Income ETF (LFDR) is 2.14%, while ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a volatility of 22.33%. This indicates that LFDR 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

	LFDR	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.14%	22.33%	-20.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.06%	51.79%	-45.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.09%	60.01%	-51.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.47%	60.46%	-50.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.47%	317.65%	-308.18%

LFDR vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LFDR vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

LFDR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.50%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
LFDR LifeX Durable Income ETF	8.50%	13.10%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LFDR and UCO in my portfolio?

LFDR 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, LFDR or UCO?

UCO has higher volatility (22.33%) compared to LFDR (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFDR dropped -7.77% vs UCO's -99.86%.

Which ETF is better, LFDR or UCO?

On 1-year performance, UCO leads with 66.00% vs -1.91% for LFDR. On fees, LFDR is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, LFDR has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LFDR or UCO?

Over the 1-year period, UCO has performed better with a 66.00% return vs -1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LFDR or UCO?

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

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

LFDR has the higher dividend yield at 8.50%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

What is the main difference between LFDR and UCO?

LFDR 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 LFDR and 0.95% for UCO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs -0.08), 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.