CANE vs UNG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CANE and UNG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CANE is Teucrium Sugar Fund, while UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP. CANE has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CANE ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 58.
| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 1.17% |
| Holdings | 15 | 16 |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 15,240,597 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22% | -9.3% |
| YTD return | +25.7% | -14.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +5.6% | -33.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 58.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -43% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -41.7% | -92.9% |
| Beta | -0.08 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 0.03 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 58/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 57/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 53/100 | 42/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Teucrium Sugar Fund vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
CANE leads
CANE leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from UNG.
Fragile: 3 of 3 evidence groups support CANE, 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 CANE over UNG, 62 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. CANE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while UNG holds the stronger quality profile. CANE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor CANE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CANE lead: Reversed — UNG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CANE now leads by 4.
Compare Teucrium Sugar Fund and United States Natural Gas Fund LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CANE vs UNG: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | CANE | UNG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.54% | 1.17% | CANE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 16 | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -41.7% | -92.9% | CANE |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 21.9% | 58.7% | CANE |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
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.
- Quality41 vs 67UNG +26
- Momentum78 vs 57CANE +21
- Risk Resilience53 vs 42CANE +11
3 of 3 evidence groups favor CANE. CANE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; UNG keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CANE's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
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
CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 45.1% against 22.6%.
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. |
| Holdings | 15 | 16 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 15,240,597 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 58.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -43% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.08 | -0.69 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor CANE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CANE | 62 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | CANE | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs -5%; vs 200-day 21% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CANE | Risk Resilience 53 vs 42 |
| 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CANE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CANE lead: Reversed — UNG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CANE now leads by 4.
- Today
- CANE +4
- 62 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CANE +6
- 63 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +2
- 56 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- CANE +7
- 62 vs 55
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CANE
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.61%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only UNG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.32%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
CANE 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.05%, AIQ +6 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.
- 1UNG closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CANE's edge.
- 2UNG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CANE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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 |
Performance
CANE leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.4% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.1% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | 25.7% | -14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22% | -9.3% |
Technicals
CANE has the stronger structure| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.4 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 34.7 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 45.1% |
Risk
CANE is the more resilient| Metric | CANE | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -1.7% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 58.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CANE or UNG?
They hold a similar number of positions: 15 for CANE and 16 for UNG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CANE has the lower expense ratio, 0.54% a year against 1.17% for UNG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
UNG has been more volatile over the past year, at 58.7% annualized against 21.9% for CANE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CANE fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -41.7% against -92.9% for UNG.
Compare CANE and UNG with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.