UCIB vs. MTUL

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

UCIB (ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B) and MTUL (ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - UCIB is a Commodities fund tracking the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while MTUL is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UCIB returned 12.29%/yr vs 19.68%/yr for MTUL. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCIB charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for MTUL.

Performance

UCIB vs. MTUL - 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 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL). 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 lower than MTUL's 57.61% 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%

MTUL

• 1D: 3.66%
• 1M: -1.77%
• 6M: 47.37%
• YTD: 57.61%
• 1Y: 69.12%
• 3Y*: 53.30%
• 5Y*: 19.68%
• 10Y*: —

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

UCIB vs. MTUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	22.64%	8.97%	6.58%	-2.26%	18.24%	30.12%
MTUL ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN	57.61%	27.42%	58.70%	10.66%	-37.97%	8.34%

Correlation

The correlation between UCIB and MTUL is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.16

The correlation between UCIB and MTUL shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (3 years) to 0.16 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

UCIB vs. MTUL — 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

MTUL

MTUL Risk / Return Rank: 59
MTUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
MTUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MTUL Omega Ratio Rank: 51
MTUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
MTUL Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. MTUL - 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 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL). 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	MTUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	1.37	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	1.96	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.26	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	2.91	-1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.09	10.64	-6.55

UCIB vs. MTUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCIB Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the MTUL Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCIB and MTUL, 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. MTUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCIB drawdown since its inception was -51.29%, smaller than the maximum MTUL drawdown of -56.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCIB and MTUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCIB	MTUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.29%	-56.83%	+5.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.66%	-23.86%	+4.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.66%	-39.15%	+19.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.95%	-56.83%	+35.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.15%	-11.71%	-2.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.01%	-22.35%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	6.52%	+0.58%

Volatility

UCIB vs. MTUL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) is 5.91%, while ETRACS 2x Leveraged MSCI US Momentum Factor TR ETN (MTUL) has a volatility of 22.21%. This indicates that UCIB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MTUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCIB	MTUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.91%	22.21%	-16.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.07%	43.94%	-11.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.68%	50.60%	-17.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.94%	44.18%	-17.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.40%	44.61%	-21.21%

UCIB vs. MTUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCIB has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than MTUL's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCIB vs. MTUL - Dividend Comparison

Neither UCIB nor MTUL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCIB and MTUL in my portfolio?

UCIB and MTUL have a correlation of 0.06, 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 MTUL?

MTUL has higher volatility (22.21%) compared to UCIB (5.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCIB dropped -51.29% vs MTUL's -56.83%.

Which ETF is better, UCIB or MTUL?

On 5-year performance, MTUL leads with 19.68% vs 12.29% for UCIB. 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 MTUL?

Over the 5-year period, MTUL has performed better with a 19.68% return vs 12.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCIB or MTUL?

UCIB is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for MTUL.

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

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

What is the main difference between UCIB and MTUL?

UCIB is categorized as Commodities, while MTUL is Momentum. UCIB tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while MTUL tracks MSCI USA Momentum Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for UCIB and 0.95% for MTUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MTUL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 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.