UMI vs. ZSB
UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by USCF, while ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. UMI is actively managed, while ZSB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMI returned 26.23%/yr vs 1.20%/yr for ZSB. Their 0.05 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. UMI charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.
Performance
UMI vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UMI achieves a 26.70% return, which is significantly higher than ZSB's 2.41% return.
UMI
- 1D
- 0.50%
- 1M
- 3.72%
- 6M
- 18.07%
- YTD
- 26.70%
- 1Y
- 28.25%
- 3Y*
- 26.23%
- 5Y*
- 22.50%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 14.58%
ZSB
- 1D
- -0.91%
- 1M
- -0.65%
- 6M
- -5.21%
- YTD
- 2.41%
- 1Y
- 53.88%
- 3Y*
- 1.20%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.10%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.28M | $1.03M | $1.15M | |
| $1.74K | $3.93K | $10.44K |
UMI vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 26.70% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 12.01% |
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 2.41% | 64.34% | -19.70% | -31.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between UMI and ZSB is -0.12, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023 | 0.05 |
The correlation between UMI and ZSB shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.05 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. ZSB — Risk / Return Rank
UMI
ZSB
UMI vs. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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 | ZSB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.38 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.79 | 3.16 | +0.63 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.51 | 7.10 | +2.41 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UMI vs. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UMI drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, roughly equal to the maximum ZSB drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI and ZSB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UMI | ZSB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.08% | -49.26% | +1.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.50% | -16.75% | +9.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.08% | -38.40% | +21.32% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.05% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.00% | -13.65% | +11.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.53% | -30.05% | +23.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.98% | 7.43% | -4.45% |
Volatility
UMI vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison
USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) has a higher volatility of 5.19% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 3.57%. This indicates that UMI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UMI | ZSB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.19% | 3.57% | +1.62% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.67% | 20.54% | -8.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.59% | 26.15% | -11.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.35% | 19.48% | -0.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.10% | 19.48% | +3.62% |
UMI vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison
UMI has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
UMI vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison
UMI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.80%, more than ZSB's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 5.80% | 6.23% | 4.39% | 4.67% | 4.36% | 3.00% | 2.18% | 2.47% | 2.48% | 0.15% |
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 0.90% | 0.92% | 2.96% | 3.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UMI and ZSB have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UMI has higher volatility (5.19%) compared to ZSB (3.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMI dropped -48.08% vs ZSB's -49.26%.
On 3-year performance, UMI leads with 26.23% vs 1.20% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 3.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, UMI has performed better with a 26.23% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.80%, compared with 0.90% for ZSB.
UMI is categorized as Energy Equities, while ZSB is Lithium & Battery Metals. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for UMI and 0.59% for ZSB.
ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 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 ZSB
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