UMI vs. LCTU
UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while LCTU is a ESG fund actively managed by BlackRock. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMI returned 20.58%/yr vs 12.48%/yr for LCTU. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for LCTU.
Performance
UMI vs. LCTU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 24.04% return, which is significantly higher than LCTU's 9.58% return.
UMI
- 1D
- 1.24%
- 1M
- 0.83%
- YTD
- 24.04%
- 6M
- 22.07%
- 1Y
- 27.12%
- 3Y*
- 27.84%
- 5Y*
- 20.58%
- 10Y*
- —
LCTU
- 1D
- 0.50%
- 1M
- 4.95%
- YTD
- 9.58%
- 6M
- 9.62%
- 1Y
- 26.22%
- 3Y*
- 21.43%
- 5Y*
- 12.48%
- 10Y*
- —
UMI vs. LCTU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 24.04% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 14.60% | 20.78% | 16.37% |
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF | 9.58% | 16.96% | 24.00% | 25.38% | -20.02% | 17.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between UMI and LCTU is -0.05, 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 | -0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 9, 2021 | 0.43 |
The correlation between UMI and LCTU shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.44 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
UMI vs. LCTU - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
UMI
LCTU
Energy
Utilities
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Energy
UMI
LCTU
Utilities
UMI
LCTU
Basic Materials
UMI
-
LCTU
Communication Services
UMI
-
LCTU
Consumer Cyclical
UMI
-
LCTU
Consumer Defensive
UMI
-
LCTU
Financial Services
UMI
-
LCTU
Healthcare
UMI
-
LCTU
Industrials
UMI
-
LCTU
Real Estate
UMI
-
LCTU
Technology
UMI
-
LCTU
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. LCTU — Risk / Return Rank
UMI
LCTU
UMI vs. LCTU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU). 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 | LCTU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.38 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.63 | 2.81 | +0.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.06 | 12.49 | -2.43 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| UMI | LCTU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.95 | 2.14 | -0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.06 | 0.73 | +0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.63 | 0.76 | -0.13 |
Drawdowns
UMI vs. LCTU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than LCTU's maximum drawdown of -25.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and LCTU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UMI | LCTU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.08% | -25.93% | -22.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.50% | -9.38% | +1.88% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.08% | -19.83% | +2.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.05% | -25.93% | +5.88% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.58% | -0.24% | -3.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.60% | -6.31% | -0.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.70% | 2.11% | +0.59% |
Volatility
UMI vs. LCTU - Volatility Comparison
USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 6.04% compared to BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) at 3.01%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCTU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UMI | LCTU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.04% | 3.01% | +3.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.94% | 9.36% | +1.58% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.06% | 12.30% | +1.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.54% | 17.15% | +2.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.19% | 17.01% | +6.18% |
UMI vs. LCTU - Expense Ratio Comparison
UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than LCTU's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
UMI vs. LCTU - Dividend Comparison
UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.91%, more than LCTU's 0.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF | 0.92% | 1.02% | 1.27% | 1.46% | 1.63% | 2.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
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% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UMI and LCTU have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UMI has higher volatility (6.04%) compared to LCTU (3.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs LCTU's -25.93%.
On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 20.58% vs 12.48% for LCTU. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LCTU has been the lower-risk option at 3.01%. 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 20.58% return vs 12.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.91%, compared with 0.92% for LCTU.
UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while LCTU is ESG. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.15% for LCTU.
LCTU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 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.
Find the right allocation for UMI and LCTU
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