PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UMI vs. GDMA
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

UMI vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

UMI vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
UMI
USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF
20.99%5.11%42.97%14.60%20.78%20.97%-8.25%21.06%-9.03%
GDMA
Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF
5.56%25.29%7.44%1.72%-2.08%3.95%21.08%11.59%-3.93%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 20.99% return, which is significantly higher than GDMA's 5.56% return.


UMI

1D
-0.75%
1M
2.74%
YTD
20.99%
6M
19.71%
1Y
20.67%
3Y*
27.68%
5Y*
24.10%
10Y*

GDMA

1D
-0.16%
1M
-5.27%
YTD
5.56%
6M
8.64%
1Y
30.39%
3Y*
14.82%
5Y*
7.72%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


UMI vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.


Return for Risk

UMI vs. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMI
UMI Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank

GDMA
GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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. GDMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA). 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.


UMIGDMADifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.17

2.52

-1.35

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.52

3.29

-1.77

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.48

-0.24

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.39

4.72

-3.33

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

4.61

14.01

-9.40

UMI vs. GDMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is lower than the GDMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI and GDMA, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


UMIGDMADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.17

2.52

-1.35

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.18

0.82

+0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.63

0.85

-0.22

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and GDMA is 0.28, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.


Dividends

UMI vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.96%, more than GDMA's 2.65% yield.


TTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
UMI
USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF
5.96%6.23%4.39%4.67%4.36%3.00%2.18%2.47%2.48%0.15%
GDMA
Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF
2.65%2.79%2.32%4.14%1.18%2.10%0.62%3.17%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

UMI vs. GDMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than GDMA's maximum drawdown of -16.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and GDMA.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


UMIGDMADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.08%

-16.66%

-31.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.76%

-6.44%

-8.32%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.05%

-12.74%

-7.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.60%

-6.06%

+4.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.67%

-3.78%

-2.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.46%

2.17%

+2.29%

Volatility

UMI vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) is 3.64%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 4.01%. This indicates that UMI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


UMIGDMADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.64%

4.01%

-0.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.69%

9.88%

-0.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.74%

12.12%

+5.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.46%

9.44%

+11.02%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.29%

10.82%

+12.47%