UCO vs. FAS
UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) and FAS (Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UCO is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%), while FAS is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UCO returned 26.28%/yr vs 22.40%/yr for FAS. Their 0.27 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. UCO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for FAS.
Performance
UCO vs. FAS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UCO achieves a 109.21% return, which is significantly higher than FAS's 4.28% return. Over the past 10 years, UCO has outperformed FAS with an annualized return of 26.28%, while FAS has yielded a comparatively lower 22.40% annualized return.
UCO
- 1D
- 1.00%
- 1M
- 24.87%
- 6M
- 67.72%
- YTD
- 109.21%
- 1Y
- 66.00%
- 3Y*
- 9.81%
- 5Y*
- 15.14%
- 10Y*
- 26.28%
- ALL TIME*
- -9.20%
FAS
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 6.21%
- 6M
- 13.95%
- YTD
- 4.28%
- 1Y
- 20.90%
- 3Y*
- 39.15%
- 5Y*
- 13.37%
- 10Y*
- 22.40%
- ALL TIME*
- 14.10%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $68.48M | $83.31M | $86.79M | |
| $134.26M | $138.13M | $153.19M |
UCO vs. FAS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 109.21% | -29.75% | 5.36% | -13.89% | 39.71% | 139.26% | 77.27% | 53.83% | -43.26% | 0.34% |
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF | 4.28% | 21.48% | 84.47% | 14.92% | -43.19% | 116.59% | -34.97% | 113.04% | -33.84% | 67.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between UCO and FAS is -0.25, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.09 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.17 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 25, 2008 | 0.27 |
The correlation between UCO and FAS shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to 0.27 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
UCO vs. FAS — Risk / Return Rank
UCO
FAS
UCO vs. FAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) and Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF (FAS). 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.
| UCO | FAS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.79 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.09 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.46 | 0.35 | +1.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 0.78 | +2.97 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UCO vs. FAS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UCO drawdown since its inception was -99.86%, which is greater than FAS's maximum drawdown of -91.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCO and FAS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UCO | FAS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.86% | -91.61% | -8.25% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -38.55% | -40.88% | +2.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -50.38% | -43.10% | -7.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -67.24% | -66.88% | -0.36% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -96.50% | -85.99% | -10.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -83.77% | -4.32% | -79.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -82.13% | -30.97% | -51.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 17.30% | 18.40% | -1.10% |
Volatility
UCO vs. FAS - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a higher volatility of 22.33% compared to Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF (FAS) at 11.99%. This indicates that UCO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UCO | FAS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 22.33% | 11.99% | +10.34% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 51.79% | 32.90% | +18.89% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 60.01% | 43.83% | +16.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 60.46% | 54.99% | +5.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 317.65% | 61.11% | +256.54% |
UCO vs. FAS - Expense Ratio Comparison
UCO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FAS's 0.88% expense ratio.
Dividends
UCO vs. FAS - Dividend Comparison
UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.05%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FAS Direxion Daily Financial Bull 3X ETF | 8.05% | 8.21% | 0.76% | 1.77% | 0.91% | 0.60% | 0.47% | 0.62% | 1.43% | 0.11% |
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UCO and FAS have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UCO has higher volatility (22.33%) compared to FAS (11.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCO dropped -99.86% vs FAS's -91.61%.
On 10-year performance, UCO leads with 26.28% vs 22.40% for FAS. On fees, FAS is cheaper at 0.88% per year. On volatility, FAS has been the lower-risk option at 11.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, UCO has performed better with a 26.28% return vs 22.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FAS is cheaper with a 0.88% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.
FAS has the higher dividend yield at 8.05%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.
UCO is categorized as Oil & Gas, while FAS is Leveraged Equities. UCO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%), while FAS tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Direxion. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UCO and 0.88% for FAS.
UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs 0.33), 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.
Find the right allocation for UCO and FAS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer