UNG vs. UCO

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both Oil & Gas funds - UNG tracks the Front Month Natural Gas Futures while UCO tracks the Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UNG returned -22.23%/yr vs 22.14%/yr for UCO. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UNG charges 1.17%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

UNG vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UNG achieves a -15.01% return, which is significantly lower than UCO's 102.64% return. Over the past 10 years, UNG has underperformed UCO with an annualized return of -22.23%, while UCO has yielded a comparatively higher 22.14% annualized return.

UNG

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: -11.39%
• 6M: 1.17%
• YTD: -15.01%
• 1Y: -34.05%
• 3Y*: -27.27%
• 5Y*: -27.30%
• 10Y*: -22.23%

UCO

• 1D: -2.00%
• 1M: 4.71%
• 6M: 94.00%
• YTD: 102.64%
• 1Y: 65.96%
• 3Y*: 15.11%
• 5Y*: 15.58%
• 10Y*: 22.14%

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

UNG vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UNG United States Natural Gas Fund LP	-15.01%	-27.07%	-17.11%	-64.04%	12.89%	35.76%	-45.43%	-31.77%	5.96%	-37.58%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	102.64%	-29.75%	5.36%	-13.89%	39.71%	139.26%	77.27%	53.83%	-43.26%	0.34%

Correlation

The correlation between UNG and UCO is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 25, 2008	0.13

Return for Risk

UNG vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

UNG

UNG Risk / Return Rank: 4
UNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
UNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
UNG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
UNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
UNG Martin Ratio Rank: 2

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 37
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 37
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

UNG vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). 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.

	UNG	UCO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.57	1.14	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.54	1.71	-2.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.21	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.86	1.72	-2.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.32	3.64	-4.96

UNG vs. UCO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UNG Sharpe Ratio is -0.57, which is lower than the UCO Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UNG and UCO, 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

UNG vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UNG drawdown since its inception was -99.88%, roughly equal to the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UNG and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	UNG	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.88%	-99.86%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-39.94%	-38.55%	-1.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-68.16%	-50.38%	-17.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.49%	-67.24%	-25.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-93.55%	-96.50%	+2.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-99.87%	-84.28%	-15.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-90.00%	-82.12%	-7.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.76%	18.17%	+7.59%

Volatility

UNG vs. UCO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) is 10.58%, while ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO) has a volatility of 20.00%. This indicates that UNG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UCO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UNG	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.58%	20.00%	-9.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	48.34%	49.91%	-1.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.59%	58.20%	+1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.19%	60.43%	+3.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	54.74%	317.63%	-262.89%

UNG vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

UNG has a 1.17% expense ratio, which is higher than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

UNG vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

Neither UNG nor UCO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UNG and UCO in my portfolio?

UNG and UCO have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UNG or UCO?

UCO has higher volatility (20.00%) compared to UNG (10.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UNG dropped -99.88% vs UCO's -99.86%.

Which ETF is better, UNG or UCO?

On 10-year performance, UCO leads with 22.14% vs -22.23% for UNG. On fees, UCO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, UNG has been the lower-risk option at 10.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UNG or UCO?

Over the 10-year period, UCO has performed better with a 22.14% return vs -22.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UNG or UCO?

UCO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.17% for UNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UNG or UCO?

UNG and UCO have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between UNG and UCO?

UNG tracks Front Month Natural Gas Futures, while UCO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Balanced WTI Crude Oil Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: USCF Investments and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.17% for UNG and 0.95% for UCO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs -0.57), 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.