UCIB vs. ZSB

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

UCIB (ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - UCIB is a Commodities fund tracking the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UCIB returned 12.00%/yr vs -0.16%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCIB charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

UCIB vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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 ZSB's 4.29% 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%

ZSB

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: -4.06%
• 6M: -8.61%
• YTD: 4.29%
• 1Y: 58.26%
• 3Y*: -0.16%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UCIB vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	22.64%	8.97%	6.58%	-0.21%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	4.29%	64.34%	-19.70%	-31.38%

Correlation

The correlation between UCIB and ZSB is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.24

Return for Risk

UCIB vs. ZSB — 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

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 78
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.21	-1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	2.67	-1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.41	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	3.50	-2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.09	8.38	-4.29

UCIB vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCIB Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCIB and ZSB, 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. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCIB drawdown since its inception was -51.29%, roughly equal to the maximum ZSB drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCIB and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCIB	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.29%	-49.26%	-2.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.66%	-16.75%	-2.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.66%	-43.22%	+23.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.15%	-12.07%	-2.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.01%	-30.30%	+9.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	6.97%	+0.13%

Volatility

UCIB vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B (UCIB) has a higher volatility of 5.91% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 5.06%. This indicates that UCIB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCIB	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.91%	5.06%	+0.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.07%	21.55%	+10.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.68%	26.57%	+6.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.94%	19.56%	+7.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.40%	19.56%	+3.84%

UCIB vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCIB has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCIB vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

UCIB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
UCIB ETRACS CMCI Total Return ETN Series B	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.88%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCIB and ZSB in my portfolio?

UCIB and ZSB have a correlation of 0.22, 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 ZSB?

UCIB has higher volatility (5.91%) compared to ZSB (5.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCIB dropped -51.29% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, UCIB or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, UCIB leads with 12.00% vs -0.16% for ZSB. On fees, UCIB is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 5.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCIB or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, UCIB has performed better with a 12.00% return vs -0.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCIB or ZSB?

UCIB is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ZSB.

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

ZSB has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.00% for UCIB.

What is the main difference between UCIB and ZSB?

UCIB is categorized as Commodities, while ZSB is Lithium & Battery Metals. UCIB tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Index, while ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for UCIB and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 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.