UCIB vs. DCMT

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

UCIB (ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B) and DCMT (DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF) are both Commodities funds. UCIB is passively managed, while DCMT is actively managed. Over the past year, UCIB returned 32.01% vs 30.61% for DCMT. Their 0.50 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. UCIB charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for DCMT.

Performance

UCIB vs. DCMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UCIB achieves a 23.75% return, which is significantly lower than DCMT's 26.14% return.

UCIB

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 6.70%
• 6M: 20.34%
• YTD: 23.75%
• 1Y: 32.01%
• 3Y*: 11.45%
• 5Y*: 12.44%
• 10Y*: 10.54%
• ALL TIME*: 4.77%

DCMT

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 7.21%
• 6M: 20.26%
• YTD: 26.14%
• 1Y: 30.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.94%

*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)
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	$312.97K	$269.09K	$196.68K
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	$582.36K	$305.70K	$123.29K

UCIB vs. DCMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	23.75%	8.97%	4.88%
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	26.14%	6.04%	3.65%

Correlation

The correlation between UCIB and DCMT is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024	0.50

The correlation between UCIB and DCMT shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (all time) to 0.70 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

UCIB vs. DCMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCIB

UCIB Risk / Return Rank: 40
UCIB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
UCIB Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
UCIB Omega Ratio Rank: 54
UCIB Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
UCIB Martin Ratio Rank: 38

DCMT

DCMT Risk / Return Rank: 58
DCMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
DCMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
DCMT Omega Ratio Rank: 61
DCMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
DCMT Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

UCIB vs. DCMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT). 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	DCMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	1.62	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.36	2.22	-0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.28	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	1.93	-0.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.13	6.43	-2.30

UCIB vs. DCMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCIB Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is lower than the DCMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCIB and DCMT, 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. DCMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCIB drawdown since its inception was -51.29%, which is greater than DCMT's maximum drawdown of -15.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCIB and DCMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCIB	DCMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.29%	-15.96%	-35.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.67%	-15.96%	-6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.67%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.67%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.37%	-9.46%	-3.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.97%	-3.62%	-17.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.77%	4.78%	+2.99%

Volatility

UCIB vs. DCMT - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) has a higher volatility of 22.90% compared to DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF (DCMT) at 5.66%. This indicates that UCIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DCMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCIB	DCMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.90%	5.66%	+17.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.85%	17.01%	+19.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.64%	19.04%	+20.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.70%	16.05%	+12.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.45%	16.05%	+8.40%

UCIB vs. DCMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCIB has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than DCMT's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCIB vs. DCMT - Dividend Comparison

UCIB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DCMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.91%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
DCMT DoubleLine Commodity Strategy ETF	2.91%	3.67%	1.59%
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCIB and DCMT in my portfolio?

UCIB and DCMT have a correlation of 0.70, 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 DCMT?

UCIB has higher volatility (22.90%) compared to DCMT (5.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCIB dropped -51.29% vs DCMT's -15.96%.

Which ETF is better, UCIB or DCMT?

On 1-year performance, UCIB leads with 32.01% vs 30.61% for DCMT. On fees, UCIB is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, DCMT has been the lower-risk option at 5.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCIB or DCMT?

Over the 1-year period, UCIB has performed better with a 32.01% return vs 30.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCIB or DCMT?

UCIB is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for DCMT.

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

DCMT has the higher dividend yield at 2.91%, compared with 0.00% for UCIB.

What is the main difference between UCIB and DCMT?

They also come from different issuers: UBS and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for UCIB and 0.66% for DCMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DCMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 0.81), 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.