UNG vs WEAT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
UNG and WEAT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. UNG is United States Natural Gas Fund LP, while WEAT is Teucrium Wheat Fund. WEAT is broader by holdings count, with 35 positions versus 16 for UNG. WEAT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has UNG ahead on AIQ Score, 58 versus 45.
| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.17% | 0.62% |
| Holdings | 16 | 35 |
| Average volume | 15,240,597 | 528,526 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -9.3% | +16.3% |
| YTD return | -14.4% | +17.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnPrice return, distributions excluded | -33.7% | -8.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 58.7% | 24.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -43% | -15.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Price return, distributions excluded | -92.9% | -67.8% |
| Beta | -0.69 | -0.10 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.03 | 1.15 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 58/100 | 45/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 35/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 65/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
United States Natural Gas Fund LP vs Teucrium Wheat Fund
UNG leads
UNG leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Competitive: 1 of 3 evidence groups support UNG.
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
Teucrium Wheat Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over WEAT, 58 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while WEAT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UNG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. UNG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 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.
UNG vs WEAT: 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 | UNG | WEAT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.17% | 0.62% | WEAT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 16 | 35 | WEAT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -92.9% | -67.8% | WEAT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 58.7% | 24.9% | WEAT |
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 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.
- Quality67 vs 44UNG +23
- Risk Resilience42 vs 65WEAT +23
- Momentum57 vs 35UNG +22
1 of 3 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; WEAT 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 +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
UNG's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
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 and momentum.
WEAT (Teucrium Wheat Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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. |
| Holdings | 16 | 35 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 15,240,597 | 528,526 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 58.7% | 24.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -43% | -15.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 0.57 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.69 | -0.10 | 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 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 | 58 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | WEAT | Price vs 50-day -5% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -6.8% vs 0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | WEAT | Risk Resilience 42 vs 65 |
| 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20UNG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +13
- 58 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- UNG +13
- 57 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +14
- 58 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- UNG +1
- 55 vs 54
The lead changed hands 6 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only UNG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.32%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only WEAT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.01%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
WEAT is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.05%, AIQ +6 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.95%, 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 Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | 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 | — |
Performance
WEAT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.3% | -9.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | -6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | 1.7% |
| Year to date | -14.4% | 17.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -9.3% | 16.3% |
Technicals
WEAT has the stronger structure| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.1 | 34.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.8% | 0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.1% | 17.1% |
Risk
WEAT is the more resilient| Metric | UNG | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.69 | -0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.03 | 1.15 |
| Max drawdown | -43% | -15.9% |
| Current drawdown | -37.9% | -15.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.7% | 24.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, UNG or WEAT?
WEAT holds more positions: 35 versus 16 for UNG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
WEAT has the lower expense ratio, 0.62% 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 24.9% for WEAT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
WEAT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -67.8% against -92.9% for UNG.
Compare UNG and WEAT 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.