MLPR
Price
$69.64
Change
+$1.41 (+2.07%)
Updated
Jul 2 closing price
Net Assets
57.29M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
UYG
Price
$91.83
Change
+$2.52 (+2.82%)
Updated
Jul 2 closing price
Net Assets
796.54M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

MLPR vs UYG

MLPR vs UYG Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three

Which ETF would AI Choose? ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) vs. ProShares Ultra Financials (UYG)

Key Takeaways

  • MLPR is a 1.5x leveraged exchange-traded note (ETN) providing exposure to the Alerian MLP Index, which tracks midstream energy master limited partnerships (MLPs) focused on transportation, storage, and processing of energy commodities, while UYG is a 2x leveraged exchange-traded fund (ETF) targeting the S&P Financial Select Sector Index of U.S. financial companies.
  • MLPR carries an annual tracking fee of 0.95% plus variable financing costs, resulting in a higher overall cost structure than many unleveraged funds, whereas UYG maintains a gross expense ratio of 0.94%.
  • MLPR offers concentrated exposure to approximately 50 energy MLPs with no direct equity holdings due to its ETN structure, while UYG holds around 80-90 securities, with top positions including Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Visa Inc.
  • Both ETFs employ daily or quarterly leverage reset mechanisms, making them suitable primarily for short-term tactical use rather than long-term buy-and-hold strategies due to compounding effects and potential volatility decay.
  • MLPR provides thematic exposure to the energy infrastructure sector, whereas UYG delivers amplified access to the broader financial services industry, including banks, insurance, and capital markets firms.
  • Structural differences include MLPR's ETN format backed by issuer credit risk versus UYG's ETF structure using derivatives for leverage, influencing counterparty and liquidity considerations.

Introduction

MLPR and UYG represent distinct leveraged strategies within different sectors, offering investors amplified exposure to energy infrastructure and financial services, respectively. They do not compete directly but serve as alternative tools for those seeking enhanced returns in cyclical industries sensitive to commodity prices, interest rates, and economic growth. This comparison highlights their structural features, risk profiles, and positioning to assist investors evaluating sector-specific leveraged opportunities in the current market environment.

ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5X Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) Overview

MLPR is an exchange-traded note (ETN) issued by UBS that seeks to deliver 1.5 times the compounded quarterly performance of the Alerian MLP Index, less fees and financing costs. The underlying index tracks approximately 50 publicly traded energy master limited partnerships (MLPs) primarily engaged in midstream activities. As an ETN, it has no direct holdings and instead relies on the creditworthiness of the issuer. The product features an annual tracking fee rate of 0.95%, accrued daily, along with variable financing fees tied to short-term rates. It pays variable quarterly coupons linked to distributions from index constituents when available. The strategy appeals to investors targeting leveraged exposure to energy midstream infrastructure without direct equity ownership.

ProShares Ultra Financials (UYG) Overview

UYG is a leveraged exchange-traded fund (ETF) from ProShares designed to deliver two times (2x) the daily performance of the S&P Financial Select Sector Index before fees and expenses. The index comprises U.S. financial companies from the S&P 500, spanning banks, insurance, consumer finance, capital markets, and mortgage real estate investment trusts (REITs). The ETF holds approximately 80-90 securities and uses derivatives such as swaps and futures to achieve leverage. Its gross expense ratio stands at 0.94%. Top holdings typically include Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Visa Inc., and similar large-cap financial names. UYG resets leverage daily, which can lead to compounding effects over longer periods.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

The energy midstream sector, relevant to MLPR, benefits from stable cash flows generated by fee-based infrastructure assets amid fluctuating commodity prices and growing demand for natural gas and oil transportation. Regulatory developments around energy infrastructure permitting and environmental standards remain key catalysts. Meanwhile, the financial sector, central to UYG, responds to interest rate expectations, credit demand, regulatory capital requirements, and overall economic expansion. Both sectors face risks from macroeconomic shifts, including inflation, recessionary pressures, and policy changes. Capital flows into leveraged products often increase during periods of sector momentum but can amplify drawdowns in volatile environments.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, MLPR's performance has been influenced by energy commodity trends, midstream volume growth, and distribution stability from its underlying MLPs. UYG has reflected broader financial sector dynamics, including earnings from banking and payment processing activities alongside interest rate sensitivity. The leveraged structures of both products magnify underlying index movements, resulting in higher volatility compared to unleveraged counterparts. MLPR's quarterly reset may produce different compounding outcomes than UYG's daily reset, particularly during sustained trends. Relative positioning favors MLPR for investors bullish on energy infrastructure stability, while UYG suits those anticipating financial sector expansion or recovery.

AI Screener

Tickeron’s AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market based on technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs using customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener helps identify trade ideas, trending stocks, breakout candidates, and market opportunities more efficiently than manual screening. Investors seeking data-driven insights on ETFs like MLPR and UYG may find the platform useful for refining their research process.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable factors such as structural strength, cost efficiency, diversification profile, trend consistency, sector momentum, and risk exposure, Tickeron’s AI would currently assign a modestly higher probability of favorability to UYG. Its established ETF structure, slightly lower expense ratio, and broader holdings within the financial sector provide a more diversified leveraged profile compared to MLPR’s ETN format and concentrated energy MLP focus. However, suitability depends on individual investor objectives and risk tolerance.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

VS
MLPR vs. UYG commentary
Jul 06, 2026

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is MLPR is a Hold and UYG is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
UYG has more net assets: 797M vs. MLPR (57.3M). MLPR has a higher annual dividend yield than UYG: MLPR (26.056) vs UYG (0.461). MLPR was incepted earlier than UYG: MLPR (6 years) vs UYG (19 years).
MLPRUYGMLPR / UYG
Gain YTD26.0560.4615,652%
Net Assets57.3M797M7%
Total Expense RatioN/A0.94-
TurnoverN/A12.00-
Yield9.000.881,020%
Fund Existence6 years19 years-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
MLPRUYG
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
82%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
89%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
88%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
87%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
77%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
87%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
88%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 14 days ago
84%
Bearish Trend 11 days ago
88%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
88%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
70%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
MLPR
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
UYG
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
OCMGX28.811.27
+4.61%
OCM Gold Investor
JGMCX22.790.13
+0.57%
Janus Henderson Triton C
NWAEX19.88N/A
N/A
Nationwide BNY Mellon Dyn US Core Eagle
MDPIX149.44-0.65
-0.43%
ProFunds Mid Cap Inv
SCVJX43.08-0.32
-0.74%
Allspring Small Company Value R6

UYG and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, UYG has been closely correlated with SF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 78% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if UYG jumps, then SF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To UYG
1D Price
Change %
UYG100%
+2.82%
SF - UYG
78%
Closely correlated
+1.84%
BAC - UYG
75%
Closely correlated
+0.63%
JPM - UYG
73%
Closely correlated
+0.12%
AXP - UYG
72%
Closely correlated
+1.41%
COF - UYG
72%
Closely correlated
+0.15%
More