UMI vs. GDMA
UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while GDMA is a Hedge Fund fund actively managed by Gadsden. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMI returned 20.82%/yr vs 8.41%/yr for GDMA. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for GDMA.
Performance
UMI vs. GDMA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 24.37% return, which is significantly higher than GDMA's 11.93% return.
UMI
- 1D
- 1.55%
- 1M
- -0.98%
- YTD
- 24.37%
- 6M
- 24.06%
- 1Y
- 27.75%
- 3Y*
- 28.08%
- 5Y*
- 20.82%
- 10Y*
- —
GDMA
- 1D
- 2.27%
- 1M
- 2.87%
- YTD
- 11.93%
- 6M
- 11.13%
- 1Y
- 29.62%
- 3Y*
- 17.27%
- 5Y*
- 8.41%
- 10Y*
- —
UMI vs. GDMA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 24.37% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 14.60% | 20.78% | 20.97% | -8.25% | 21.06% | -9.03% |
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF | 11.93% | 25.29% | 7.44% | 1.72% | -2.08% | 3.95% | 21.08% | 11.59% | -3.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between UMI and GDMA is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2018 | 0.26 |
Over the past year, the correlation between UMI and GDMA has dropped to 0.06 - well below their long-term average of 0.26, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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. GDMA — Risk / Return Rank
UMI
GDMA
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.
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 | GDMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.16 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.33 | 1.38 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.72 | 3.95 | -0.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.50 | 10.42 | -0.92 |
Loading charts...
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 charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UMI | GDMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.08% | -16.66% | -31.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.50% | -7.53% | +0.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.08% | -7.53% | -9.55% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.05% | -12.74% | -7.31% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.32% | -2.01% | -1.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.58% | -3.78% | -2.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.93% | 2.85% | +0.08% |
Volatility
UMI vs. GDMA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) is 5.38%, while Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a volatility of 8.90%. 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| UMI | GDMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.38% | 8.90% | -3.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.24% | 13.01% | -1.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.36% | 15.32% | -0.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.48% | 10.26% | +9.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.15% | 11.35% | +11.80% |
UMI vs. GDMA - Expense Ratio Comparison
UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GDMA's 0.77% expense ratio.
Dividends
UMI vs. GDMA - Dividend Comparison
UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.90%, more than GDMA's 2.49% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF | 2.49% | 2.79% | 2.32% | 4.14% | 1.18% | 2.10% | 0.62% | 3.17% | 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
UMI and GDMA have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GDMA has higher volatility (8.90%) compared to UMI (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs GDMA's -16.66%.
On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.82% vs 8.41% for GDMA. On fees, GDMA is cheaper at 0.77% 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 8.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GDMA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.90%, compared with 2.49% for GDMA.
UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while GDMA is Hedge Fund. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and Gadsden. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.77% for GDMA.
UMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.94), 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 GDMA
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