UMI vs. HAP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. UMI is actively managed, while HAP is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMI returned 20.20%/yr vs 11.62%/yr for HAP. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for HAP.

Performance

UMI vs. HAP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 21.76% return, which is significantly higher than HAP's 15.91% return.

UMI

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: -5.27%
• YTD: 21.76%
• 6M: 23.01%
• 1Y: 24.46%
• 3Y*: 27.84%
• 5Y*: 20.20%
• 10Y*: —

HAP

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: -3.69%
• YTD: 15.91%
• 6M: 15.93%
• 1Y: 36.73%
• 3Y*: 17.20%
• 5Y*: 11.62%
• 10Y*: 11.78%

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

UMI vs. HAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	21.76%	5.11%	42.97%	14.60%	20.78%	20.97%	-8.25%	21.06%	-10.64%	2.76%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	15.91%	34.91%	-4.08%	2.46%	7.84%	25.04%	6.30%	18.60%	-10.68%	4.98%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and HAP is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2017	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between UMI and HAP has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

UMI vs. HAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMI	HAP
Energy	99.0%	30.7%
Utilities	1.0%	9.3%
Basic Materials	-	38.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	2.8%
Industrials	-	10.1%
Real Estate	-	0.4%
Technology	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

UMI vs. HAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 54
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 48
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 51

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 78
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 76
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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. HAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP). 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	HAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	2.37	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	3.08	-0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.43	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	4.44	-1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.47	15.74	-7.27

UMI vs. HAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the HAP Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI and HAP, 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. HAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, smaller than the maximum HAP drawdown of -50.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and HAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMI	HAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.08%	-50.99%	+2.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.50%	-8.31%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.08%	-16.92%	-0.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.05%	-25.66%	+5.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-6.46%	+1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-12.06%	+5.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.90%	2.34%	+0.56%

Volatility

UMI vs. HAP - Volatility Comparison

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) at 5.05%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMI	HAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	5.05%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.05%	12.85%	-1.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.23%	15.58%	-1.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.45%	18.25%	+1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.16%	19.75%	+3.41%

UMI vs. HAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than HAP's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMI vs. HAP - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.02%, more than HAP's 1.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.96%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	6.02%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMI and HAP in my portfolio?

UMI and HAP have a correlation of 0.31, 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 HAP?

UMI has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to HAP (5.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs HAP's -50.99%.

Which ETF is better, UMI or HAP?

On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.20% vs 11.62% for HAP. On fees, HAP is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, HAP has been the lower-risk option at 5.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMI or HAP?

Over the 5-year period, UMI has performed better with a 20.20% return vs 11.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMI or HAP?

HAP is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

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

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 6.02%, compared with 1.96% for HAP.

What is the main difference between UMI and HAP?

They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.42% for HAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.73), 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.