CANE vs UNG ETF Comparison
Compare CANE and UNG across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between CANE and UNG?
CANE is Teucrium Sugar Fund, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. CANE is tied to Commodities; UNG is tied to Commodities. UNG is broader by holdings count, with 3 positions versus 1 for CANE. CANE has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | CANE | UNG | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 1.17% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $60M | $575M | Fund |
| Holdings | 1 | 3 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 16% | - | Fund |
| Average volume | 33,588 | 5,697,212 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 58.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -43% | Risk |
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.70 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | -0.15 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | -0.19 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 65/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 74/100 | 69/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 48/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Teucrium Sugar Fund vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
UNG leads
UNG leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CANE.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support UNG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Teucrium Sugar Fund
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over CANE, 65 versus 60 as of Sep 5, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CANE holds the stronger momentum profile. UNG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. UNG lead: Reversed — CANE led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNG now leads by 5.
Compare Teucrium Sugar Fund and United States Natural Gas Fund LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare CANE and UNG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality30%40 vs 67UNG +27
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 56UNG +8
- Momentum25%74 vs 69CANE +5
2 of 3 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CANE keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
UNG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CANE and UNG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
UNGUNG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CANECANE on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
UNGUNG on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CANE | UNG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 1.17% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $60M | $575M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 32 | 3 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 33,588 | 5,697,212 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 58.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -43% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | -0.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.70 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, CANE or UNG?
UNG currently has more reported holdings, with 3 positions versus 1.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CANE has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
UNG has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CANE has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
UNG currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 65 to 60.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNG | 60 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | CANE | Price vs 50-day 10.8% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs -10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | UNG | Risk Resilience 48 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CANE and UNG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on UNG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3UNG lead: Reversed — CANE led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNG now leads by 5.
- Today
- UNG +5
- 60 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- CANE +3
- 60 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- CANE +10
- 62 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- CANE +1
- 61 vs 60
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when CANE moved ahead of UNG.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
UNG leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.26%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.67%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CANE closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2CANE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3UNG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 74% |
| Gross margin | — | 0% |
| Operating margin | — | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0 |
Technicals
CANE has the stronger structure| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 65.2 | 66.9 |
| ADX (14) | 45.3 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.8% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | -10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 26.4% |
Risk
UNG is the more resilient| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | -0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | -0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 58.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CANE or UNG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 65 against CANE's 60. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CANE is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CANE or UNG the better buy right now?
UNG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UNG over CANE?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UNG leads Quality by 27 points; UNG leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; CANE leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, CANE or UNG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CANE or UNG?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CANE or UNG?
CANE on the Momentum factor, by 5 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CANE or UNG?
UNG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNG on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CANE more profitable than UNG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is UNG's lead over CANE getting stronger or weaker?
UNG lead: Reversed — CANE led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNG now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when CANE moved ahead of UNG.
What would change the CANE vs UNG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CANE closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge; CANE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; UNG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CANE and UNG?
CANE: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. UNG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CANE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UNG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CANE and UNG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.