UCIB vs. AMUB

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

UCIB (ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B) and AMUB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B) are both exchange-traded funds - UCIB is a Commodities fund tracking the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while AMUB is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UCIB returned 10.48%/yr vs 3.26%/yr for AMUB. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCIB charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for AMUB.

Performance

UCIB vs. AMUB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UCIB achieves a 22.64% return, which is significantly higher than AMUB's 19.34% return. Over the past 10 years, UCIB has outperformed AMUB with an annualized return of 10.48%, while AMUB has yielded a comparatively lower 3.26% annualized return.

UCIB

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 2.22%
• 6M: 18.97%
• YTD: 22.64%
• 1Y: 28.95%
• 3Y*: 12.00%
• 5Y*: 12.29%
• 10Y*: 10.48%

AMUB

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 2.94%
• 6M: 14.09%
• YTD: 19.34%
• 1Y: 17.57%
• 3Y*: 15.42%
• 5Y*: 14.13%
• 10Y*: 3.26%

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

UCIB vs. AMUB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	22.64%	8.97%	6.58%	-2.26%	18.24%	37.34%	1.10%	10.86%	-9.48%	5.85%
AMUB ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B	19.34%	2.05%	15.68%	16.89%	21.91%	28.83%	-36.47%	-1.78%	-19.25%	-13.07%

Correlation

The correlation between UCIB and AMUB is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.23
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2015	0.31

Return for Risk

UCIB vs. AMUB — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCIB

UCIB Risk / Return Rank: 36
UCIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
UCIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
UCIB Omega Ratio Rank: 52
UCIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
UCIB Martin Ratio Rank: 34

AMUB

AMUB Risk / Return Rank: 40
AMUB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
AMUB Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
AMUB Omega Ratio Rank: 39
AMUB Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
AMUB Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

UCIB vs. AMUB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB). 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.

	UCIB	AMUB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	1.23	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	1.77	-0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.21	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	1.61	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.09	4.10	-0.01

UCIB vs. AMUB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCIB Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is comparable to the AMUB Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCIB and AMUB, 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

UCIB vs. AMUB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCIB drawdown since its inception was -51.29%, smaller than the maximum AMUB drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCIB and AMUB.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCIB	AMUB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.29%	-79.46%	+28.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.66%	-11.02%	-8.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.66%	-17.22%	-2.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.95%	-20.58%	-0.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.94%	-78.86%	+41.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.15%	-4.26%	-9.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.01%	-29.00%	+7.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	4.31%	+2.79%

Volatility

UCIB vs. AMUB - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Index ETN Class B (AMUB) have volatilities of 5.91% and 6.08%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCIB	AMUB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.91%	6.08%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.07%	10.87%	+21.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.68%	14.37%	+18.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.94%	20.09%	+6.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.40%	27.17%	-3.77%

UCIB vs. AMUB - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCIB has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than AMUB's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCIB vs. AMUB - Dividend Comparison

Neither UCIB nor AMUB has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCIB and AMUB in my portfolio?

UCIB and AMUB have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UCIB or AMUB?

AMUB has higher volatility (6.08%) compared to UCIB (5.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCIB dropped -51.29% vs AMUB's -79.46%.

Which ETF is better, UCIB or AMUB?

On 10-year performance, UCIB leads with 10.48% vs 3.26% for AMUB. On fees, UCIB is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, UCIB has been the lower-risk option at 5.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCIB or AMUB?

Over the 10-year period, UCIB has performed better with a 10.48% return vs 3.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCIB or AMUB?

UCIB is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for AMUB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UCIB or AMUB?

UCIB and AMUB have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between UCIB and AMUB?

UCIB is categorized as Commodities, while AMUB is MLPs. UCIB tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while AMUB tracks Alerian MLP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for UCIB and 0.80% for AMUB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AMUB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 0.89), 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.