EATZ vs UMI
AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF vs USCF Midstream Energy Income ETF
Which is better, EATZ or UMI?
UMI has been ahead.
UMI has a lower expense ratio. UMI led over 1Y and the full window. EATZ is less concentrated, with 61.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EATZ | UMI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.69%Best |
| AUM | $2M | $527M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.48% | 6.27% |
| Holdings | 22 | 25 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.3% | 18.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -34.4% | -20.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,336 | $30,105Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 61.2%Best | 62.2% |
| Fund Family | Advisor Shares | USCF Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | All Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 20, 2021 | Mar 24, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 167 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. EATZ has data through Apr 30, 2026 and UMI through Oct 14, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 21, 2021 to Apr 30, 2026 (5 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EATZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 18.0% for UMI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -34.4% for EATZ and -20.1% for UMI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EATZ charges 1.00% per year while UMI charges 0.69%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $69 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EATZ currently yields 0.48% against 6.27% for UMI.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 22 holdings in EATZ and 23 in UMI, totalling 104.2% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
The two holdings books were reported 244 days apart, EATZ as of Jan 30, 2026 and UMI as of Oct 1, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
0 positions in common, counted across the 22 positions we hold weights for in EATZ and 23 in UMI, against full books of 22 and 25.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 16 positions for UMI that do not appear in our book for EATZ (74.3% of the fund), and 21 for EATZ that do not appear in UMI (99.5%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of EATZ and UMI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EATZ or UMI?
EATZ has an expense ratio of 1.00% while UMI charges 0.69%. UMI is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, EATZ or UMI?
EATZ has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 18.0% for UMI. Worst drawdown: EATZ -34.4% vs UMI -20.1%.
Should I hold both EATZ and UMI?
EATZ and UMI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, EATZ or UMI?
EATZ yields 0.48% while UMI yields 6.27%, so UMI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is UMI better than EATZ?
UMI has a lower expense ratio. UMI led over 1Y and the full window. EATZ is less concentrated, with 61.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.