XBCI vs. ATMP
XBCI (NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF) and ATMP (Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - XBCI is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Neos, while ATMP is a MLPs fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP. XBCI is actively managed, while ATMP is passively managed. Their -0.16 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. XBCI charges 0.98%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ATMP.
Performance
XBCI vs. ATMP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
XBCI
- 1D
- -3.22%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
ATMP
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- 5.19%
- 6M
- 17.51%
- YTD
- 26.22%
- 1Y
- 23.85%
- 3Y*
- 20.30%
- 5Y*
- 18.49%
- 10Y*
- 5.16%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.84%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $521.25K | $462.49K | $511.48K | |
| $3.48M | $3.42M | $5.46M |
XBCI vs. ATMP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF | -22.94% |
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN | 19.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between XBCI and ATMP is -0.16, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2026 | -0.16 |
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
XBCI vs. ATMP — Risk / Return Rank
XBCI
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ATMP
XBCI vs. ATMP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP). 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.
| XBCI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.27 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.81 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.57 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XBCI vs. ATMP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XBCI drawdown since its inception was -37.31%, smaller than the maximum ATMP drawdown of -80.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBCI and ATMP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XBCI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.31% | -80.86% | +43.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.30% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -16.48% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.98% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.66% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.97% | -1.27% | -29.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.82% | -30.81% | +14.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.54% | — |
Volatility
XBCI vs. ATMP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XBCI | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.01% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.75% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 62.61% | 14.57% | +48.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.61% | 21.94% | +40.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 62.61% | 27.62% | +34.99% |
XBCI vs. ATMP - Expense Ratio Comparison
XBCI has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is higher than ATMP's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
XBCI vs. ATMP - Dividend Comparison
XBCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 26.04%, while ATMP has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM |
|---|---|
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN | 0.00% |
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF | 26.04% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XBCI and ATMP have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ATMP is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ATMP is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for XBCI.
XBCI has the higher dividend yield at 26.04%, compared with 0.00% for ATMP.
XBCI is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while ATMP is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Barclays Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for XBCI and 0.95% for ATMP.
Find the right allocation for XBCI and ATMP
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