UNG vs WEAT ETF Comparison
Compare UNG and WEAT across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between UNG and WEAT?
UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP, while WEAT is Teucrium Wheat Fund. UNG is tied to Commodities; WEAT is tied to Commodities. UNG is broader by holdings count, with 3 positions versus 1 for WEAT. WEAT has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | UNG | WEAT | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.17% | 0.62% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $575M | $340M | Fund |
| Holdings | 3 | 1 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | - | 32.6% | Fund |
| Average volume | 5,697,212 | 769,823 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 58.5% | 24.3% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -43% | -14.4% | Risk |
| Beta | -0.70 | -0.13 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | 1.05 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -0.19 | 2.02 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 69/100 | 79/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 56/100 | 54/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
United States Natural Gas Fund LP vs Teucrium Wheat Fund
UNG leads
UNG leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support UNG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
Teucrium Wheat Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over WEAT, 65 versus 59 as of Sep 5, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while WEAT holds the stronger momentum profile. UNG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. UNG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare United States Natural Gas Fund LP and Teucrium Wheat Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare UNG and WEAT 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%67 vs 44UNG +23
- Momentum25%69 vs 79WEAT +10
- Risk Resilience15%56 vs 54Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in quality; WEAT 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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -3
No new signals fired.
UNG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UNG and WEAT 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.
WEAT (Teucrium Wheat 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
WEATWEAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
UNGUNG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | UNG | WEAT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.17% | 0.62% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $575M | $340M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 3 | 32 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,697,212 | 769,823 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 58.5% | 24.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -43% | -14.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.70 | -0.13 | 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, UNG or WEAT?
UNG currently has more reported holdings, with 3 positions versus 1.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
WEAT 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?
WEAT 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 59.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 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 | 65 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | WEAT | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day -10.7% vs 19.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 54 |
| 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 UNG and WEAT 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 6 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +6
- 65 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- WEAT +2
- 57 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +3
- 52 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- UNG +11
- 60 vs 49
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when UNG moved ahead of WEAT.
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 / 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
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.60%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.67%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.32%, 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.
- 1WEAT closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2WEAT'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 | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| 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
WEAT has the stronger structure| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.9 | 72.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 28.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.7% | 19.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.4% | 28.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.7 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.19 | 2.02 |
| Max drawdown | -43% | -14.4% |
| Current drawdown | -37.9% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.5% | 24.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UNG or WEAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 65 against WEAT's 59. The edge comes from quality. WEAT 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 UNG or WEAT the better buy right now?
UNG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UNG over WEAT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UNG leads Quality by 23 points; WEAT leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, UNG or WEAT?
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, UNG or WEAT?
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, UNG or WEAT?
WEAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, UNG or WEAT?
UNG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is UNG more profitable than WEAT?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is UNG's lead over WEAT getting stronger or weaker?
UNG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when UNG moved ahead of WEAT.
What would change the UNG vs WEAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WEAT closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge; WEAT'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 UNG and WEAT?
UNG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WEAT: 5 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 UNG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WEAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UNG and WEAT 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.