MLPA vs. UMI

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MLPA (Global X MLP ETF) and UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MLPA is a MLPs fund tracking the Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index, while UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc.. MLPA is passively managed, while UMI is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MLPA returned 14.82%/yr vs 20.61%/yr for UMI. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MLPA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for UMI.

Performance

MLPA vs. UMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MLPA achieves a 14.27% return, which is significantly lower than UMI's 23.69% return.

MLPA

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: -4.45%
• YTD: 14.27%
• 6M: 14.04%
• 1Y: 15.23%
• 3Y*: 16.94%
• 5Y*: 14.82%
• 10Y*: 6.04%

UMI

• 1D: 1.58%
• 1M: -3.77%
• YTD: 23.69%
• 6M: 23.28%
• 1Y: 27.27%
• 3Y*: 28.51%
• 5Y*: 20.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

MLPA vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MLPA Global X MLP ETF	14.27%	5.73%	20.35%	15.93%	27.03%	39.64%	-33.97%	11.91%	-15.71%	9.80%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	23.69%	5.11%	42.97%	14.60%	20.78%	20.97%	-8.25%	21.06%	-10.64%	2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between MLPA and UMI is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2017	0.68

The correlation between MLPA and UMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (all time) to 0.86 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MLPA vs. UMI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MLPA	UMI
Energy	96.8%	99.0%
Utilities	3.2%	1.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

MLPA vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

MLPA

MLPA Risk / Return Rank: 36
MLPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
MLPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
MLPA Omega Ratio Rank: 33
MLPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
MLPA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 62
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 56
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

MLPA vs. UMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). 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.

	MLPA	UMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.92	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.83	2.64	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.33	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.84	3.65	-1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.17	9.41	-4.25

MLPA vs. UMI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MLPA Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the UMI Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MLPA and UMI, 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

MLPA vs. UMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLPA drawdown since its inception was -78.75%, which is greater than UMI's maximum drawdown of -48.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPA and UMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	MLPA	UMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.75%	-48.08%	-30.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.33%	-7.50%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.20%	-17.08%	+2.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.75%	-20.05%	+1.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.33%	-3.85%	-1.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.21%	-6.58%	-13.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.96%	2.90%	+0.06%

Volatility

MLPA vs. UMI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MLP ETF (MLPA) is 4.66%, while USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a volatility of 5.61%. This indicates that MLPA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MLPA	UMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.66%	5.61%	-0.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	11.10%	-2.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.14%	14.28%	-2.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.08%	19.46%	-1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.44%	23.16%	+4.28%

MLPA vs. UMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

MLPA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than UMI's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

MLPA vs. UMI - Dividend Comparison

MLPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.39%, more than UMI's 5.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MLPA Global X MLP ETF	7.39%	7.82%	7.25%	7.49%	7.30%	8.72%	13.84%	9.09%	10.00%	8.05%	7.15%	9.29%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	5.93%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MLPA and UMI in my portfolio?

MLPA and UMI have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MLPA or UMI?

UMI has higher volatility (5.61%) compared to MLPA (4.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLPA dropped -78.75% vs UMI's -48.08%.

Which ETF is better, MLPA or UMI?

On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.61% vs 14.82% for MLPA. On fees, MLPA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, MLPA has been the lower-risk option at 4.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MLPA or UMI?

Over the 5-year period, UMI has performed better with a 20.61% return vs 14.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MLPA or UMI?

MLPA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MLPA or UMI?

MLPA has the higher dividend yield at 7.39%, compared with 5.93% for UMI.

What is the main difference between MLPA and UMI?

MLPA is categorized as MLPs, while UMI is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MLPA and 0.85% for UMI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.26), 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.