UMI vs. ATMP
UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and ATMP (Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while ATMP is a MLPs fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP. UMI is actively managed, while ATMP is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMI returned 20.82%/yr vs 15.86%/yr for ATMP. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ATMP.
Performance
UMI vs. ATMP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 24.37% return, which is significantly higher than ATMP's 20.16% return.
UMI
- 1D
- 1.55%
- 1M
- -0.98%
- YTD
- 24.37%
- 6M
- 24.06%
- 1Y
- 27.75%
- 3Y*
- 28.08%
- 5Y*
- 20.82%
- 10Y*
- —
ATMP
- 1D
- 1.51%
- 1M
- -3.60%
- YTD
- 20.16%
- 6M
- 20.03%
- 1Y
- 20.62%
- 3Y*
- 21.24%
- 5Y*
- 15.86%
- 10Y*
- 5.10%
UMI vs. ATMP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 24.37% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 14.60% | 20.78% | 20.97% | -8.25% | 21.06% | -10.64% | 2.76% |
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN | 20.16% | 1.73% | 31.66% | 14.51% | 20.71% | 33.06% | -34.39% | 0.39% | -14.55% | 8.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between UMI and ATMP is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2017 | 0.74 |
The correlation between UMI and ATMP shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (all time) to 0.94 (3 years), 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
UMI vs. ATMP — Risk / Return Rank
UMI
ATMP
UMI vs. ATMP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP). 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.
| UMI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.50 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.63 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | 1.25 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.72 | 2.51 | +1.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.50 | 6.15 | +3.35 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UMI vs. ATMP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, smaller than the maximum ATMP drawdown of -80.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and ATMP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UMI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.08% | -80.86% | +32.78% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.50% | -8.30% | +0.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.08% | -16.48% | -0.60% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.05% | -22.98% | +2.93% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.66% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.32% | -5.96% | +2.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.58% | -31.02% | +24.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.93% | 3.37% | -0.44% |
Volatility
UMI vs. ATMP - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) is 5.38%, while Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) has a volatility of 5.94%. This indicates that UMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ATMP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UMI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.38% | 5.94% | -0.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.24% | 11.24% | 0.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.36% | 14.50% | -0.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.48% | 22.15% | -2.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.15% | 27.66% | -4.51% |
UMI vs. ATMP - Expense Ratio Comparison
UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than ATMP's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
UMI vs. ATMP - Dividend Comparison
UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.90%, while ATMP has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 5.90% | 6.23% | 4.39% | 4.67% | 4.36% | 3.00% | 2.18% | 2.47% | 2.48% | 0.15% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.92, UMI and ATMP move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
ATMP has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to UMI (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs ATMP's -80.86%.
On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.82% vs 15.86% for ATMP. On fees, UMI is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, UMI has been the lower-risk option at 5.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, UMI has performed better with a 20.82% return vs 15.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
UMI is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ATMP.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.90%, compared with 0.00% for ATMP.
UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while ATMP is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and Barclays Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.95% for ATMP.
UMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.44), 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 UMI and ATMP
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