UMI vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while EFAS is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. UMI is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMI returned 20.58%/yr vs 12.06%/yr for EFAS. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

UMI vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 24.04% return, which is significantly higher than EFAS's 13.06% return.

UMI

• 1D: 1.24%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 24.04%
• 6M: 22.07%
• 1Y: 27.12%
• 3Y*: 27.84%
• 5Y*: 20.58%
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: -1.69%
• YTD: 13.06%
• 6M: 17.18%
• 1Y: 28.75%
• 3Y*: 24.51%
• 5Y*: 12.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

UMI vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	24.04%	5.11%	42.97%	14.60%	20.78%	20.97%	-8.25%	21.06%	-10.64%	2.76%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	13.06%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	-8.00%	12.75%	-5.42%	14.60%	-11.60%	1.98%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and EFAS is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2017	0.44

Over the past year, the correlation between UMI and EFAS has dropped to 0.19 - well below their long-term average of 0.44, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

UMI vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMI	EFAS
Energy	99.0%	13.7%
Utilities	1.0%	14.4%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.1%
Financial Services	-	30.1%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	9.9%
Real Estate	-	11.3%
Technology	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

UMI vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 61
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 56
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 58

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 83
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 81
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

UMI vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	UMI	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.73	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	3.84	-1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.47	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.63	5.45	-1.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.06	14.46	-4.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UMI vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI and EFAS, 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

	UMI	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.95	2.73	-0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.06	0.78	+0.28
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.63	0.56	+0.07

Drawdowns

UMI vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than EFAS's maximum drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMI	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.08%	-44.38%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.50%	-5.30%	-2.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.08%	-11.84%	-5.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.05%	-28.81%	+8.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.58%	-2.92%	-0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.60%	-7.07%	+0.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.70%	1.99%	+0.71%

Volatility

UMI vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 6.04% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 2.76%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMI	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.04%	2.76%	+3.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.94%	8.19%	+2.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.06%	10.57%	+3.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.54%	15.59%	+3.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.19%	18.33%	+4.86%

UMI vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMI vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.91%, more than EFAS's 4.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.72%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	5.91%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMI and EFAS in my portfolio?

UMI and EFAS have a correlation of 0.19, 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 EFAS?

UMI has higher volatility (6.04%) compared to EFAS (2.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, UMI or EFAS?

On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.58% vs 12.06% for EFAS. On fees, EFAS is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 2.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMI or EFAS?

Over the 5-year period, UMI has performed better with a 20.58% return vs 12.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMI or EFAS?

EFAS is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

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

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.91%, compared with 4.72% for EFAS.

What is the main difference between UMI and EFAS?

UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while EFAS is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 1.95), 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.