CPER vs USO ETF Comparison
Compare CPER and USO across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between CPER and USO?
CPER is United States Copper Index Fund, while USO is United States Oil Fund, LP. CPER is tied to Commodities; USO is tied to Commodities. USO has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 54.
| Metric | CPER | USO | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.88% | 0.86% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $734M | $1.7B | Fund |
| Holdings | 1 | 1 | Fund |
| Average volume | 146,906 | 2,714,553 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 48.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -32.5% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.25 | -1.30 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.49 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.75 | 2.35 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 64/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 82/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 20/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
United States Copper Index Fund vs United States Oil Fund, LP
USO leads
USO leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CPER.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support USO, the lead recently changed hands, 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, 64 versus 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. USO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, 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 Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. USO lead: Reversed — CPER led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 10.
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.
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 Resilience15%60 vs 20CPER +40
- Quality30%45 vs 72USO +27
- Momentum25%61 vs 82USO +21
2 of 3 evidence groups favor USO. USO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CPER keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +2
New signals
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.50%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
USO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 quality and momentum.
CPER (United States Copper Index Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
USOUSO 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
USOUSO on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
CPERCPER on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | — | +77.7% | 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. |
| Assets under management | $734M | $1.7B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 1 | 1 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 146,906 | 2,714,553 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 48.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -32.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.49 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.25 | -1.30 | 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, CPER or USO?
Use holdings count, top-10 concentration and sector exposure together; the current dataset does not show a decisive holdings-count edge.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
USO 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?
USO has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
CPER has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
USO currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 64 to 54.
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 | 54 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USO | Price vs 50-day 2.5% vs 15.2%; vs 200-day 8.8% vs 32.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CPER | Risk Resilience 60 vs 20 |
| 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 conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3USO lead: Reversed — CPER led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 10.
- Today
- USO +10
- 54 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- USO +5
- 53 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- CPER +8
- 59 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- CPER +3
- 45 vs 42
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when CPER moved ahead of USO.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.02%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.1%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, 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 Quality gap — currently 27 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 — 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.
Technicals
USO has the stronger structure| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 73.4 |
| ADX (14) | 12.4 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.5% | 15.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.8% | 32.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.6% | 40.1% |
Risk
CPER is the more resilient| Metric | CPER | USO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.25 | -1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.75 | 2.35 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 48.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPER or USO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 64 against CPER's 54. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CPER is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 CPER or USO the better buy right now?
USO 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor USO over CPER?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CPER leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; USO leads Quality by 27 points; USO leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPER or USO?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for CPER and +77.7% for USO. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CPER or USO?
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, CPER or USO?
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, CPER or USO?
USO on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, CPER or USO?
CPER is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPER on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 CPER more profitable than USO?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is USO's lead over CPER getting stronger or weaker?
USO lead: Reversed — CPER led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; USO now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-27, when CPER moved ahead of USO.
What would change the CPER vs USO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CPER closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to USO's edge; CPER's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; USO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 CPER and USO?
CPER: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. USO: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CPER is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On USO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPER and USO 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.