USE vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

USE (USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both Commodities funds from USCF. USE is actively managed, while ZSB is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, USE returned 16.79%/yr vs 6.63%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. USE charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

USE vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USE achieves a 44.71% return, which is significantly higher than ZSB's 14.02% return.

USE

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: -2.42%
• YTD: 44.71%
• 6M: 45.41%
• 1Y: 38.15%
• 3Y*: 16.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZSB

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 14.02%
• 6M: 28.85%
• 1Y: 78.36%
• 3Y*: 6.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

USE vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
USE USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund	44.71%	-14.97%	22.58%	9.98%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	14.02%	64.34%	-19.70%	-21.11%

Correlation

The correlation between USE and ZSB is -0.10, 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	-0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2023	0.08

The correlation between USE and ZSB shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

USE vs. ZSB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	USE	ZSB
Financial Services	23.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	90.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	8.3%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

USE vs. ZSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

USE

USE Risk / Return Rank: 31
USE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
USE Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
USE Omega Ratio Rank: 32
USE Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
USE Martin Ratio Rank: 23

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 81
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

USE vs. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE) 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.

	USE	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	2.99	-1.77
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.83	3.38	-1.55
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.54	-0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.58	4.77	-3.18
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.12	13.48	-10.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

USE vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USE Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is lower than the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USE and ZSB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	USE	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.22	2.99	-1.77
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.05	+0.62

Drawdowns

USE vs. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USE drawdown since its inception was -26.24%, smaller than the maximum ZSB drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USE and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	USE	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.24%	-49.26%	+23.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.24%	-16.75%	-9.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.24%	-43.22%	+16.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.00%	-3.87%	-3.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.96%	-30.98%	+23.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.32%	5.92%	+7.40%

Volatility

USE vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (USE) has a higher volatility of 11.27% compared to USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) at 5.39%. This indicates that USE'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.

Volatility by Period

	USE	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.27%	5.39%	+5.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.77%	22.64%	+3.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.43%	26.31%	+5.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.03%	19.60%	+7.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.03%	19.60%	+7.43%

USE vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

USE has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

USE vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

USE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, more than ZSB's 0.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
USE USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund	2.11%	3.06%	38.65%	4.83%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.81%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USE and ZSB in my portfolio?

USE and ZSB have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, USE or ZSB?

USE has higher volatility (11.27%) compared to ZSB (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USE dropped -26.24% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, USE or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, USE leads with 16.79% vs 6.63% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 5.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, USE or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, USE has performed better with a 16.79% return vs 6.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, USE or ZSB?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for USE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, USE or ZSB?

USE has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 0.81% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between USE and ZSB?

Their fees differ too: 0.79% for USE and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 1.22), 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.