XBCI vs. UMI

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

XBCI (NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF) and UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBCI is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by Neos, while UMI is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Wainwright, Inc.. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. XBCI charges 0.98%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for UMI.

Performance

XBCI vs. UMI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

XBCI

• 1D: -4.70%
• 1M: -25.10%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UMI

• 1D: 1.58%
• 1M: -3.77%
• YTD: 23.69%
• 6M: 23.28%
• 1Y: 27.27%
• 3Y*: 28.51%
• 5Y*: 20.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

XBCI vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF	-23.52%
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	16.57%

Correlation

The correlation between XBCI and UMI is -0.12, 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 3, 2026	-0.12

Return for Risk

XBCI vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBCI

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

UMI

UMI Risk / Return Rank: 62
UMI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
UMI Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
UMI Omega Ratio Rank: 56
UMI Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
UMI Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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. UMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). 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	UMI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.92	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.64	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.33	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.65	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	9.41	—

Drawdowns

XBCI vs. UMI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBCI drawdown since its inception was -34.73%, smaller than the maximum UMI drawdown of -48.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBCI and UMI.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBCI	UMI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.73%	-48.08%	+13.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.50%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.05%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.48%	-3.85%	-27.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.48%	-6.58%	-4.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.90%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	XBCI	UMI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.61%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	11.10%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	67.34%	14.28%	+53.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.34%	19.46%	+47.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	67.34%	23.16%	+44.18%

XBCI vs. UMI - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBCI has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is higher than UMI's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBCI vs. UMI - Dividend Comparison

XBCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 22.16%, more than UMI's 5.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF	5.93%	6.23%	4.39%	4.67%	4.36%	3.00%	2.18%	2.47%	2.48%	0.15%
XBCI NEOS Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF	22.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBCI and UMI in my portfolio?

XBCI and UMI 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.

Which ETF is better, XBCI or UMI?

On fees, UMI is cheaper at 0.85% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBCI or UMI?

UMI is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for XBCI.

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

XBCI has the higher dividend yield at 22.16%, compared with 5.93% for UMI.

What is the main difference between XBCI and UMI?

XBCI is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while UMI is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Neos and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for XBCI and 0.85% for UMI.