CPER vs USO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CPER and USO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CPER is United States Copper Index Fund, while USO is United States Oil Fund, LP. USO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USO ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 50.
| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.88% | 0.86% |
| Holdings | 26 | 25 |
| Average volume | 499,250 | 5,838,190 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +28.9% | +135.5% |
| YTD return | +13.7% | +132% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | +7.5% | +22.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 49.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -32.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -34.7% | -36.2% |
| Beta | 1.24 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | 3.04 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 82/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
United States Copper Index Fund vs United States Oil Fund, LP
USO leads
USO leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support USO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
United States Copper Index Fund
United States Oil Fund, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USO over CPER, 65 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. USO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CPER holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. USO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare United States Copper Index Fund and United States Oil Fund, LP across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CPER 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 | CPER | USO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.88% | 0.86% | USO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 26 | 25 | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34.7% | -36.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 28.1% | 49.6% | CPER |
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 CPER 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.
- Risk Resilience62 vs 23CPER +39
- Momentum48 vs 82USO +34
- Quality45 vs 72USO +27
2 of 3 evidence groups favor USO. USO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CPER 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: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
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 narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPER 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 momentum and quality.
CPER (United States Copper Index 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 | CPER | 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 | CPER | USO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.88% | 0.86% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 26 | 25 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 499,250 | 5,838,190 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 49.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -32.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 1.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.24 | -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
2 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 | USO | 50 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USO | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs 10.8%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 33.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CPER | Risk Resilience 62 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 CPER and USO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USO +15
- 50 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- USO +15
- 46 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- USO +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- CPER +2
- 60 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when USO moved ahead of CPER.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CPER
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.41%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only USO
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.53%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1CPER closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to USO's edge.
- 2CPER's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.3% | 22% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.7% | 25.2% |
| Year to date | 13.7% | 132% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.9% | 135.5% |
Technicals
USO has the stronger structure| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.6 | 73.9 |
| ADX (14) | 8.4 | 25.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | 10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 33.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.8% | 34.7% |
Risk
CPER is the more resilient| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | -1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 1.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | 3.04 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.1% | -0.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 49.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, CPER or USO?
They hold a similar number of positions: 26 for CPER and 25 for USO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
USO has the lower expense ratio, 0.86% a year against 0.88% for CPER.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
USO has been more volatile over the past year, at 49.6% annualized against 28.1% for CPER.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -34.7% for CPER and -36.2% for USO.
Compare CPER 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.