TPYP vs UMI

Key Takeaways

• TPYP is a passively managed index fund tracking the Tortoise North American Pipeline Index, while UMI is an actively managed, income-focused midstream portfolio.
• TPYP holds roughly 44 North American pipeline names, whereas UMI is far more concentrated with about 24 holdings.
• Both funds are non-diversified and share many of the same large midstream companies, creating meaningful portfolio overlap.
• TPYP carries a lower expense ratio of 0.40%, compared with UMI's net 0.69% (0.85% gross, before fee waivers).
• TPYP blends energy (roughly 85%) with utilities (roughly 15%), while UMI is almost entirely pure energy exposure and excludes utilities.
• The two differ in structure and tax treatment: UMI operates as a regulated investment company (RIC), while TPYP's index spans several legal structures including master limited partnerships (MLPs).

Introduction

Investors seeking income and exposure to North American energy infrastructure often weigh these two funds side by side. TPYP and UMI do not merely overlap in theme; they directly compete for the same pool of midstream and pipeline investors. Both concentrate on the fee-based, "toll-road" businesses that transport, store, and process oil and natural gas. Their difference lies in approach: TPYP is a rules-based index fund, while UMI is an active strategy targeting higher current income. This ETF comparison clarifies how structure, sector exposure, cost, and positioning shape each fund's risk and return profile.

Tortoise North American Pipeline ETF (TPYP) Overview

TPYP is a passively managed ETF that seeks to track the total return of the Tortoise North American Pipeline Index, a float-adjusted, capitalization-weighted index of pipeline companies headquartered in the United States and Canada. Launched in 2015, the fund is non-diversified and typically holds around 44 securities. Its top holdings include Kinder Morgan (KMI), Targa Resources (TRGP), Cheniere Energy (LNG), Williams (WMB), ONEOK (OKE), Energy Transfer (ET), and Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), alongside Canadian names such as Enbridge and TC Energy. Sector allocation is approximately 84–86% energy and 14–16% utilities, the latter reflecting gas-utility names like NiSource (NI). The expense ratio is 0.40%, and the portfolio is rebalanced according to the underlying index methodology rather than manager discretion.

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund (UMI) Overview

UMI is an actively managed ETF that seeks a high level of current income, with capital appreciation as a secondary objective. Launched in 2021 and sub-advised by Miller/Howard Investments, the fund applies bottom-up fundamental research to U.S. and Canadian midstream energy companies, integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) analysis into its selection process. UMI is non-diversified and concentrated, holding roughly 24 to 25 names. Its largest positions include Energy Transfer (ET), Enterprise Products Partners (EPD), Targa Resources (TRGP), Williams (WMB), Kinder Morgan (KMI), Plains GP (PAGP), DT Midstream (DTM), MPLX (MPLX), and ONEOK (OKE). Its portfolio is nearly pure energy (around 99%), with minimal utility exposure. The fund's gross expense ratio is 0.85%, with a net ratio of about 0.69% after fee waivers, and it distributes income quarterly as a RIC, which simplifies tax reporting for many shareholders.

Industry and Thematic Backdrop

Both funds sit at the intersection of energy demand, natural gas fundamentals, and income investing. Midstream operators earn largely fee-based revenue from long-term contracts, which historically produces steadier cash flows than commodity-price-driven producers. Several catalysts have supported the segment in recent market cycles: rising U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity, growing power demand from data centers, and disciplined capital allocation that has shifted cash toward distributions and buybacks rather than aggressive expansion. Consolidation activity has also reshaped the midstream landscape. At the same time, these funds remain sensitive to interest-rate expectations, because income-oriented and MLP-adjacent securities often trade like yield-sensitive instruments, and to regulatory and pipeline-permitting developments. A sustained rise in rates or a cyclical slowdown in energy demand would represent shared risks to both portfolios.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent weeks and over recent market cycles, both funds have generally benefited from firm midstream fundamentals and renewed investor interest in energy infrastructure. Their relative positioning, however, diverges in important ways. TPYP's modest utility sleeve adds a defensive, lower-beta component that can temper drawdowns when energy sentiment softens, while its broader ~44-stock roster provides greater diversification. UMI, by contrast, is a higher-conviction, more concentrated vehicle with a near-total energy tilt and an explicit income mandate; this can amplify upside during midstream rallies but also heightens volatility and single-name risk. Cost is another differentiator: TPYP's 0.40% expense ratio is structurally cheaper than UMI's net 0.69%, a gap that compounds over time. Overall, TPYP offers broad, index-driven exposure, while UMI offers a more focused, actively managed bet on current income.

AI Screener

Tickeron's AI Screener is an AI-powered stock and ETF discovery tool that helps traders and investors filter the market using technical patterns, fundamentals, trends, volatility, and AI-driven signals. Users can scan thousands of stocks and ETFs with customizable filters such as industry, market capitalization, technical indicators, price patterns, and performance metrics. The screener helps identify trade ideas, trending names, breakout candidates, and market opportunities far more efficiently than manual screening. To explore how these or other energy and income-oriented funds are positioned today, try the AI Screener.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural factors, Tickeron's AI would likely lean toward TPYP for most investors seeking diversified midstream exposure. Its lower expense ratio, broader holding base, and blended energy-plus-utility allocation offer superior cost efficiency and a more balanced risk profile, which tends to favor consistent relative positioning over time. UMI remains a reasonable candidate for investors who specifically want concentrated, active income generation and are comfortable with higher fees, a near-pure energy tilt, and greater single-name concentration. The preferred choice therefore depends on whether an investor prioritizes cost and diversification or targeted yield and active management. Neither fund is a guarantee of outperformance, and each carries meaningful sector and concentration risk.

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