UMI vs. SCMB

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and SCMB (Schwab Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc., while SCMB is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the ICE AMT-Free Core U.S. National Municipal Index - Benchmark TR Gross. UMI is actively managed, while SCMB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMI returned 27.84%/yr vs 3.19%/yr for SCMB. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SCMB.

Performance

UMI vs. SCMB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Schwab Municipal Bond ETF (SCMB). 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 SCMB's 1.54% return.

UMI

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

SCMB

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 1.63%
• YTD: 1.54%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 6.59%
• 3Y*: 3.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UMI vs. SCMB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	21.76%	5.11%	42.97%	14.60%	5.97%
SCMB Schwab Municipal Bond ETF	1.54%	3.78%	0.91%	5.86%	2.88%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI and SCMB is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 12, 2022	0.03

The correlation between UMI and SCMB shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.05 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

UMI vs. SCMB — 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

SCMB

SCMB Risk / Return Rank: 66
SCMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
SCMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
SCMB Omega Ratio Rank: 84
SCMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
SCMB Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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. SCMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and Schwab Municipal Bond ETF (SCMB). 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	SCMB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	2.29	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	3.35	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.48	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	2.27	+1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.47	7.44	+1.03

UMI vs. SCMB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMI Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the SCMB Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI and SCMB, 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. SCMB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than SCMB's maximum drawdown of -6.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and SCMB.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMI	SCMB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.08%	-6.13%	-41.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.50%	-2.92%	-4.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.08%	-5.57%	-11.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.35%	-0.40%	-4.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.59%	-1.31%	-5.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.90%	0.89%	+2.01%

Volatility

UMI vs. SCMB - Volatility Comparison

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to Schwab Municipal Bond ETF (SCMB) at 0.72%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMI	SCMB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	0.72%	+4.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.05%	2.16%	+8.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.23%	2.89%	+11.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.45%	4.14%	+15.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.16%	4.14%	+19.02%

UMI vs. SCMB - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than SCMB's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMI vs. SCMB - Dividend Comparison

UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.02%, more than SCMB's 3.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SCMB Schwab Municipal Bond ETF	3.52%	3.36%	3.34%	3.10%	0.59%	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 SCMB in my portfolio?

UMI and SCMB have a correlation of -0.19, 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 SCMB?

UMI has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to SCMB (0.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs SCMB's -6.13%.

Which ETF is better, UMI or SCMB?

On 3-year performance, UMI leads with 27.84% vs 3.19% for SCMB. On fees, SCMB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, SCMB has been the lower-risk option at 0.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMI or SCMB?

Over the 3-year period, UMI has performed better with a 27.84% return vs 3.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMI or SCMB?

SCMB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.

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

UMI has the higher dividend yield at 6.02%, compared with 3.52% for SCMB.

What is the main difference between UMI and SCMB?

UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while SCMB is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Wainwright, Inc. and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.03% for SCMB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCMB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 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.