UMI vs. MLPI

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while MLPI is a MLPs fund actively managed by NEOS. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for MLPI.

Performance

UMI vs. MLPI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). 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 MLPI's 18.32% return.

UMI

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

MLPI

• 1D: 1.53%
• 1M: -3.23%
• YTD: 18.32%
• 6M: 17.87%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UMI vs. MLPI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	21.76%	0.89%
MLPI NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	18.32%	0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and MLPI is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2025	0.89

Return for Risk

UMI vs. MLPI — 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

MLPI

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. MLPI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). 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	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.47	—	—

Drawdowns

UMI vs. MLPI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than MLPI's maximum drawdown of -5.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and MLPI.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMI	MLPI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.08%	-5.38%	-42.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-3.23%	-2.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-1.49%	-5.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.90%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	UMI	MLPI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.05%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.23%	13.04%	+1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.45%	13.04%	+6.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.16%	13.04%	+10.12%

UMI vs. MLPI - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMI vs. MLPI - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.02%, less than MLPI's 7.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MLPI NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	7.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMI and MLPI in my portfolio?

UMI and MLPI have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, UMI or MLPI?

On fees, MLPI is cheaper at 0.68% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMI or MLPI?

MLPI is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

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

MLPI has the higher dividend yield at 7.27%, compared with 6.02% for UMI.

What is the main difference between UMI and MLPI?

UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while MLPI is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and NEOS. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.68% for MLPI.