UCO vs. UNL

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) and UNL (United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP) are both Oil & Gas funds - UCO tracks the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%) while UNL tracks the 12 Month Natural Gas. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UCO returned 21.66%/yr vs -5.23%/yr for UNL. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UCO charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for UNL.

Performance

UCO vs. UNL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) and United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UCO achieves a 100.52% return, which is significantly higher than UNL's -18.29% return. Over the past 10 years, UCO has outperformed UNL with an annualized return of 21.66%, while UNL has yielded a comparatively lower -5.23% annualized return.

UCO

• 1D: 11.74%
• 1M: -7.72%
• 6M: 88.88%
• YTD: 100.52%
• 1Y: 57.67%
• 3Y*: 13.74%
• 5Y*: 14.86%
• 10Y*: 21.66%

UNL

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: -5.93%
• 6M: -10.40%
• YTD: -18.29%
• 1Y: -30.69%
• 3Y*: -18.45%
• 5Y*: -9.87%
• 10Y*: -5.23%

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

UCO vs. UNL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	100.52%	-29.75%	5.36%	-13.89%	39.71%	139.26%	77.27%	53.83%	-43.26%	0.34%
UNL United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP	-18.29%	-9.67%	-4.78%	-50.20%	47.01%	54.42%	-9.54%	-18.78%	12.53%	-21.47%

Correlation

The correlation between UCO and UNL 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	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2010	0.13

Return for Risk

UCO vs. UNL — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 34
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

UNL

UNL Risk / Return Rank: 2
UNL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
UNL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
UNL Omega Ratio Rank: 3
UNL Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
UNL Martin Ratio Rank: 1

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. UNL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) and United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL). 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	UNL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	-0.88	+1.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	-1.12	+2.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	0.85	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.50	-0.94	+2.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.22	-1.56	+4.78

UCO vs. UNL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UCO Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is higher than the UNL Sharpe Ratio of -0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UCO and UNL, 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

UCO vs. UNL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UCO drawdown since its inception was -99.86%, which is greater than UNL's maximum drawdown of -89.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UCO and UNL.

Drawdown Indicators

	UCO	UNL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.86%	-89.32%	-10.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-38.55%	-32.78%	-5.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.38%	-49.67%	-0.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-67.24%	-78.75%	+11.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-96.50%	-78.75%	-17.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-84.44%	-89.32%	+4.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-82.12%	-73.43%	-8.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.99%	19.65%	-1.66%

Volatility

UCO vs. UNL - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a higher volatility of 21.64% compared to United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund LP (UNL) at 5.82%. This indicates that UCO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UNL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UCO	UNL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	21.64%	5.82%	+15.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	49.97%	29.30%	+20.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	58.34%	35.19%	+23.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	60.48%	41.75%	+18.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	317.76%	33.84%	+283.92%

UCO vs. UNL - Expense Ratio Comparison

UCO has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than UNL's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

UCO vs. UNL - Dividend Comparison

Neither UCO nor UNL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UCO and UNL in my portfolio?

UCO and UNL 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, UCO or UNL?

UCO has higher volatility (21.64%) compared to UNL (5.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UCO dropped -99.86% vs UNL's -89.32%.

Which ETF is better, UCO or UNL?

On 10-year performance, UCO leads with 21.66% vs -5.23% for UNL. On fees, UNL is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, UNL has been the lower-risk option at 5.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UCO or UNL?

Over the 10-year period, UCO has performed better with a 21.66% return vs -5.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UCO or UNL?

UNL is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for UCO.

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

UCO and UNL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between UCO and UNL?

UCO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%), while UNL tracks 12 Month Natural Gas. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for UCO and 0.90% for UNL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.00 vs -0.88), 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.