XBCI vs. UCO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XBCI (NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF) and UCO (ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil) are both exchange-traded funds - XBCI is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Neos, while UCO is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Dow Jones-UBS Crude Oil Sub-Index (200%). XBCI is actively managed, while UCO is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. XBCI charges 0.98%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for UCO.

Performance

XBCI vs. UCO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

XBCI

• 1D: -4.22%
• 1M: -28.48%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UCO

• 1D: -3.93%
• 1M: -5.57%
• YTD: 139.34%
• 6M: 124.58%
• 1Y: 115.57%
• 3Y*: 24.38%
• 5Y*: 21.18%
• 10Y*: -11.98%

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

XBCI vs. UCO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF	-19.85%
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	100.96%

Correlation

The correlation between XBCI and UCO is -0.22, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2026	-0.22

Return for Risk

XBCI vs. UCO — Risk / Return Rank

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

UCO

UCO Risk / Return Rank: 54
UCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
UCO Omega Ratio Rank: 51
UCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
UCO Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

XBCI vs. UCO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XBCI	UCO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.03	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.36	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	-0.17	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.73	-0.34	-0.38

Drawdowns

XBCI vs. UCO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBCI drawdown since its inception was -29.12%, smaller than the maximum UCO drawdown of -99.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBCI and UCO.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBCI	UCO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.12%	-99.95%	+70.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-34.77%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-50.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-67.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-98.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.12%	-99.26%	+70.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.31%	-85.49%	+77.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	18.34%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	XBCI	UCO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	20.99%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	46.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	67.05%	57.26%	+9.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.05%	59.81%	+7.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	67.05%	71.35%	-4.30%

XBCI vs. UCO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBCI has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is higher than UCO's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBCI vs. UCO - Dividend Comparison

XBCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 21.42%, while UCO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM
UCO ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil	0.00%
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF	21.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBCI and UCO in my portfolio?

XBCI 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 ETF is better, XBCI or UCO?

On fees, UCO is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBCI or UCO?

UCO is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for XBCI.

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

XBCI has the higher dividend yield at 21.42%, compared with 0.00% for UCO.

What is the main difference between XBCI and UCO?

XBCI is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while UCO is Leveraged Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for XBCI and 0.95% for UCO.