MTBA vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MTBA (Simplify MBS ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - MTBA is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund actively managed by Simplify, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. MTBA is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, MTBA returned 5.18% vs 80.94% for UGA. At a correlation of -0.25, they often move in opposite directions. MTBA charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

MTBA vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MTBA achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 75.49% return.

MTBA

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.21%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 0.18%
• 1Y: 5.18%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

MTBA vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MTBA Simplify MBS ETF	-0.23%	7.74%	1.99%	3.64%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	75.49%	-2.00%	3.77%	-1.51%

Correlation

The correlation between MTBA and UGA is -0.42, 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	-0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2023	-0.25

The correlation between MTBA and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.42 (1 year) to -0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MTBA vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MTBA

MTBA Risk / Return Rank: 45
MTBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
MTBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MTBA Omega Ratio Rank: 51
MTBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
MTBA Martin Ratio Rank: 39

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 69
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 60
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

MTBA vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA) 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.

	MTBA	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	2.32	-0.64
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	2.75	-0.37
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.37	-0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.84	5.47	-3.62
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.28	13.25	-6.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MTBA vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MTBA Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is comparable to the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MTBA and UGA, 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

	MTBA	UGA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.68	2.32	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.30	0.12	+1.18

Drawdowns

MTBA vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MTBA drawdown since its inception was -3.48%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MTBA and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MTBA	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.48%	-86.59%	+83.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.82%	-14.88%	+12.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.60%	-12.35%	+10.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.79%	-36.76%	+35.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.83%	6.13%	-5.30%

Volatility

MTBA vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Simplify MBS ETF (MTBA) is 1.33%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 11.66%. This indicates that MTBA 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.

Volatility by Period

	MTBA	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.33%	11.66%	-10.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.47%	30.41%	-27.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.10%	35.14%	-32.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.95%	34.38%	-30.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.95%	37.27%	-33.32%

MTBA vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MTBA has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

MTBA vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

MTBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.09%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
MTBA Simplify MBS ETF	6.09%	5.98%	6.03%	0.48%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MTBA and UGA in my portfolio?

MTBA and UGA have a correlation of -0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MTBA or UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (11.66%) compared to MTBA (1.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MTBA dropped -3.48% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, MTBA or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 80.94% vs 5.18% for MTBA. On fees, MTBA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, MTBA has been the lower-risk option at 1.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MTBA or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 80.94% return vs 5.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MTBA or UGA?

MTBA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for UGA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MTBA or UGA?

MTBA has the higher dividend yield at 6.09%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between MTBA and UGA?

MTBA is categorized as Mortgage Backed Securities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for MTBA and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.68), 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.