PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RSPH vs. UCO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RSPH vs. UCO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - RSPH is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC, while UCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RSPH returned 7.94%/yr vs -11.31%/yr for UCO. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

RSPH vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPH achieves a -2.71% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 149.12% return. Over the past 10 years, RSPH has outperformed UCO with an annualized return of 7.94%, while UCO has yielded a comparatively lower -11.31% annualized return.

RSPH

1D
0.81%
1M
2.49%
YTD
-2.71%
6M
-2.70%
1Y
8.70%
3Y*
3.21%
5Y*
2.54%
10Y*
7.94%

UCO

1D
2.71%
1M
-4.64%
YTD
149.12%
6M
137.09%
1Y
120.48%
3Y*
25.90%
5Y*
22.16%
10Y*
-11.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RSPH vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RSPH
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF		-2.71%9.52%-0.94%3.95%-9.40%23.19%18.83%25.48%-0.66%23.70%
UCO
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil		149.12%-29.75%5.36%-13.89%39.71%139.26%-92.91%53.83%-43.26%0.34%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and UCO is -0.27, 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

-0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.13

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.01

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.11

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2008

0.19

The correlation between RSPH and UCO shifts across timeframes, from -0.27 (1 year) to 0.19 (all time), 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.

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF

ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil

Often compared with RSPH:
RSPH vs. XLVRSPH vs. VHTRSPH vs. IXJRSPH vs. FHLCRSPH vs. MEDIRSPH vs. VIGRSPH vs. SPY
Often compared with UCO:
UCO vs. USOUCO vs. SCOUCO vs. OILUUCO vs. BOILUCO vs. ERXUCO vs. LABUUCO vs. OIH

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
RSPH
RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
UCO
UCO Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RSPH vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) 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.

RSPHUCODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.57
2.12

-1.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.91
2.46

-1.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.11

1.32

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.80

3.49

-2.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.01

6.60

-4.59

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSPH vs. UCO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the UCO Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH 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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

RSPHUCODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.57

2.12

-1.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

0.37

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

-0.16

+0.61

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.58

-0.34

+0.92

Drawdowns

RSPH vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and UCO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RSPHUCODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.49%

-99.95%

+59.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.87%

-34.77%

+23.90%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.13%

-50.38%

+33.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.95%

-67.24%

+45.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.44%

-98.75%

+68.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.83%

-99.23%

+92.40%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.14%

-85.49%

+79.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.33%

18.33%

-14.00%

Volatility

RSPH vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is 3.87%, while ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a volatility of 20.83%. This indicates that RSPH 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RSPHUCODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.87%

20.83%

-16.96%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.36%

46.44%

-36.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.46%

57.11%

-41.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.26%

59.78%

-43.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.72%

71.36%

-53.64%

RSPH vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RSPH
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF		0.73%0.70%0.71%0.66%0.64%0.50%0.51%0.54%0.53%0.47%0.48%0.49%
UCO
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil		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

RSPH and UCO have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UCO has higher volatility (20.83%) compared to RSPH (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs UCO's -99.95%.

On 10-year performance, RSPH leads with 7.94% vs -11.31% for UCO. On fees, RSPH is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPH has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RSPH has performed better with a 7.94% return vs -11.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RSPH is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

RSPH has the higher dividend yield at 0.73%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

RSPH is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while UCO is Leveraged Commodities. RSPH tracks S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Health Care -SEC, while UCO tracks Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Invesco and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 0.95% for UCO.

UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.57), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RSPH and UCO

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