UCO vs. AGGA

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) and AGGA (Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%), while AGGA is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Astoria. UCO is passively managed, while AGGA is actively managed. Over the past year, UCO returned 106.12% vs 4.44% for AGGA. At a correlation of -0.40, they often move in opposite directions. UCO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for AGGA.

Performance

UCO vs. AGGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) and Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF (AGGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UCO achieves a 131.94% return, which is significantly higher than AGGA's 0.56% return.

UCO

• 1D: -3.09%
• 1M: 3.56%
• YTD: 131.94%
• 6M: 114.50%
• 1Y: 106.12%
• 3Y*: 23.38%
• 5Y*: 20.42%
• 10Y*: -12.52%

AGGA

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: -0.27%
• YTD: 0.56%
• 6M: 0.79%
• 1Y: 4.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UCO vs. AGGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	131.94%	-0.92%
AGGA Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF	0.56%	4.36%

Correlation

The correlation between UCO and AGGA is -0.41, 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	-0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	-0.40

Return for Risk

UCO vs. AGGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 51
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 48
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 39

AGGA

AGGA Risk / Return Rank: 70
AGGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
AGGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
AGGA Omega Ratio Rank: 73
AGGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
AGGA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

UCO vs. AGGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) and Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF (AGGA). 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.

	UCO	AGGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.09	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	3.12	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.40	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	3.04	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.80	12.23	-6.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UCO vs. AGGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCO Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the AGGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCO and AGGA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	UCO	AGGA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86	2.09	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.35	2.04	-2.39

Drawdowns

UCO vs. AGGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCO drawdown since its inception was -99.95%, which is greater than AGGA's maximum drawdown of -1.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCO and AGGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCO	AGGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.95%	-1.47%	-98.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.77%	-1.47%	-33.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.38%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-98.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.28%	-0.47%	-98.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-85.49%	-0.22%	-85.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	18.36%	0.36%	+18.00%

Volatility

UCO vs. AGGA - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a higher volatility of 17.06% compared to Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF (AGGA) at 0.77%. This indicates that UCO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AGGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCO	AGGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.06%	0.77%	+16.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.72%	1.61%	+45.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.32%	2.14%	+55.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.80%	2.22%	+57.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	71.35%	2.22%	+69.13%

UCO vs. AGGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than AGGA's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCO vs. AGGA - Dividend Comparison

UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AGGA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.65%.

Position	TTM	2025
AGGA Astoria Dynamic Core US Fixed Income ETF	4.65%	2.81%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCO and AGGA in my portfolio?

UCO and AGGA have a correlation of -0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UCO or AGGA?

UCO has higher volatility (17.06%) compared to AGGA (0.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCO dropped -99.95% vs AGGA's -1.47%.

Which ETF is better, UCO or AGGA?

On 1-year performance, UCO leads with 106.12% vs 4.44% for AGGA. On fees, AGGA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, AGGA has been the lower-risk option at 0.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCO or AGGA?

Over the 1-year period, UCO has performed better with a 106.12% return vs 4.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCO or AGGA?

AGGA is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UCO or AGGA?

AGGA has the higher dividend yield at 4.65%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

What is the main difference between UCO and AGGA?

UCO is categorized as Leveraged Commodities, while AGGA is Multisector Bonds. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Astoria. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UCO and 0.55% for AGGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AGGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.86), 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.