UMI vs. BKGI

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and BKGI (Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by USCF, while BKGI is a Infrastructure Equities fund actively managed by BNY Mellon. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMI returned 26.23%/yr vs 21.24%/yr for BKGI. Their 0.59 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for BKGI.

Performance

UMI vs. BKGI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 26.70% return, which is significantly higher than BKGI's 14.23% return.

UMI

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 3.72%
• 6M: 18.07%
• YTD: 26.70%
• 1Y: 28.25%
• 3Y*: 26.23%
• 5Y*: 22.50%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.58%

BKGI

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.55%
• 6M: 8.99%
• YTD: 14.23%
• 1Y: 20.08%
• 3Y*: 21.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.98%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	$18.95M	$14.99M	$11.61M
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	$1.28M	$1.03M	$1.15M

UMI vs. BKGI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	26.70%	5.11%	42.97%	14.60%	-1.82%
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	14.23%	37.53%	12.35%	9.72%	8.54%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and BKGI is 0.38, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2022	0.59

Over the past year, the correlation between UMI and BKGI has dropped to 0.38 - well below their long-term average of 0.59, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

UMI vs. BKGI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMI	BKGI
Energy	99.1%	21.1%
Utilities	0.9%	46.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	11.5%
Real Estate	-	19.0%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

UMI vs. BKGI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 83
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 81
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 76

BKGI

BKGI Risk / Return Rank: 80
BKGI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
BKGI Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BKGI Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BKGI Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BKGI Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

UMI vs. BKGI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI). 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	BKGI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	1.80	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	2.51	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.79	3.38	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.51	10.08	-0.58

UMI vs. BKGI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the BKGI Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI and BKGI, 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

UMI vs. BKGI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than BKGI's maximum drawdown of -14.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and BKGI.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMI	BKGI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.08%	-14.79%	-33.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.50%	-6.16%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.08%	-11.37%	-5.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.00%	-1.78%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.53%	-2.54%	-3.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.98%	2.06%	+0.92%

Volatility

UMI vs. BKGI - Volatility Comparison

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 5.19% compared to Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI) at 3.04%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BKGI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMI	BKGI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.19%	3.04%	+2.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.67%	9.55%	+2.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.59%	11.58%	+3.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.35%	13.95%	+5.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.10%	13.95%	+9.15%

UMI vs. BKGI - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than BKGI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMI vs. BKGI - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.80%, more than BKGI's 2.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	2.89%	2.65%	4.55%	4.55%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	5.80%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMI and BKGI in my portfolio?

UMI and BKGI have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMI or BKGI?

UMI has higher volatility (5.19%) compared to BKGI (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs BKGI's -14.79%.

Which ETF is better, UMI or BKGI?

On 3-year performance, UMI leads with 26.23% vs 21.24% for BKGI. On fees, BKGI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BKGI has been the lower-risk option at 3.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMI or BKGI?

Over the 3-year period, UMI has performed better with a 26.23% return vs 21.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMI or BKGI?

BKGI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UMI or BKGI?

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.80%, compared with 2.89% for BKGI.

What is the main difference between UMI and BKGI?

UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while BKGI is Infrastructure Equities. They also come from different issuers: USCF and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.65% for BKGI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.80), 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.