CANE vs USO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CANE and USO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CANE is Teucrium Sugar Fund, while USO is United States Oil Fund, LP. USO is broader by holdings count, with 25 positions versus 15 for CANE. CANE has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USO ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 62.
| Metric | CANE | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.86% |
| Holdings | 15 | 25 |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 5,838,190 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22% | +135.5% |
| YTD return | +25.7% | +132% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +5.6% | +22.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 49.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -32.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -41.7% | -36.2% |
| Beta | -0.08 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 3.04 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 78/100 | 82/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 53/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Teucrium Sugar Fund vs United States Oil Fund, LP
USO leads
USO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CANE.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support USO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Teucrium Sugar Fund
United States Oil Fund, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USO over CANE, 65 versus 62 as of Oct 21, 2026. USO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CANE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. USO lead: Reversed — CANE led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 3.
Compare Teucrium Sugar Fund and United States Oil Fund, LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CANE vs USO: 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 | USO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.54% | 0.86% | CANE |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 25 | USO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -41.7% | -36.2% | USO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 21.9% | 49.6% | 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 USO 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 72USO +31
- Risk Resilience53 vs 23CANE +30
- Momentum78 vs 82USO +4
1 of 3 evidence groups favor USO. USO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CANE keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
USO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CANE and USO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USO (United States Oil Fund, LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CANE | USO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +57.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | USO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.86% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 15 | 25 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 5,838,190 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 49.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -32.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 1.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.08 | -1.55 | 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USO | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs 10.8%; vs 200-day 21% vs 33.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CANE | Risk Resilience 53 vs 23 |
| 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 USO 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (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 USO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20USO lead: Reversed — CANE led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 3.
- Today
- USO +3
- 62 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- CANE +2
- 63 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- CANE +5
- 56 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- CANE +4
- 62 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when USO moved ahead of CANE.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
USO 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.5%, AIQ 0 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 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to USO's edge.
- 2CANE's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3USO'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.
Performance
USO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CANE | USO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | 4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.4% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.1% | 22% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33% | 25.2% |
| Year to date | 25.7% | 132% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22% | 135.5% |
Technicals
USO has the stronger structure| Metric | CANE | USO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.4 | 73.9 |
| ADX (14) | 34.7 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | 10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21% | 33.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 34.7% |
Risk
CANE is the more resilient| Metric | CANE | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 3.04 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -1.7% | -0.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 49.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CANE or USO?
USO holds more positions: 25 versus 15 for CANE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CANE has the lower expense ratio, 0.54% a year against 0.86% for USO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
USO has been more volatile over the past year, at 49.6% annualized against 21.9% for CANE.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -36.2% against -41.7% for CANE.
Compare CANE and USO 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.