AMLP
Price
$52.36
Change
-$1.09 (-2.04%)
Updated
Oct 7 closing price
Net Assets
12.68B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
UMI
Price
$57.90
Change
-$0.91 (-1.55%)
Updated
Oct 7 closing price
Net Assets
514.87M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
USAI
Price
$44.72
Change
-$0.71 (-1.56%)
Updated
Oct 7 closing price
Net Assets
111.67M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

AMLP or UMI or USAI

AMLP vs UMI vs USAI Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three
A.I.Advisor
Sep 23, 2026

Which ETF would AI Choose? Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) vs. USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) vs. Pacer American Energy Infrastructure ETF (USAI)

Key Takeaways

  • AMLP is a passive ETF tracking the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index with approximately 16 holdings concentrated in midstream master limited partnerships (MLPs), featuring a higher expense ratio of 1.01%.
  • UMI is an actively managed ETF targeting high-quality U.S. and Canadian midstream energy companies with about 24 holdings and a lower expense ratio of 0.69%, emphasizing income generation.
  • USAI is a passive ETF tracking the American Energy Infrastructure Index with roughly 35 holdings, allocating 80% to U.S. and Canadian midstream companies and 20% to MLPs, at an expense ratio of 0.75%.
  • All three ETFs provide exposure to the midstream energy infrastructure sector but differ in structure (passive vs. active), diversification depth, MLP concentration, and tax considerations.
  • AMLP offers the highest MLP exposure and potential tax complexity, while UMI and USAI provide broader or actively selected diversification with potentially simpler tax reporting.
  • Structural differences influence cost efficiency, concentration risk, and sensitivity to energy infrastructure cash flows and regulatory environments.

Introduction

These three ETFs target the midstream energy infrastructure theme, which encompasses the transportation, storage, and processing of oil, natural gas, and refined products. AMLP, UMI, and USAI compete within the same sector but employ distinct approaches: AMLP delivers pure-play MLP exposure through a passive index, UMI uses active management for income-focused selection, and USAI balances MLP and corporate structures in a rules-based passive framework. Investors compare them to assess trade-offs in cost, diversification, tax treatment, and alignment with midstream cash flow stability amid evolving energy markets.

Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) Overview

AMLP seeks to track the price and yield performance of the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index before fees and expenses. The fund typically holds about 16 securities, with top holdings including Sunoco LP (SUN), MPLX LP (MPLX), Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), Plains All American Pipeline LP (PAA), and Western Midstream Partners LP (WES). Sector allocation is heavily concentrated in energy infrastructure, primarily midstream MLPs. The expense ratio stands at 1.01%. As a passive, non-diversified ETF structured as a C-corporation, AMLP provides simplified 1099 tax reporting instead of K-1s but incurs corporate-level taxes. It rebalances according to the underlying index methodology and focuses exclusively on MLPs earning most cash flows from energy midstream activities.

USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) Overview

UMI is an actively managed ETF seeking high current income with secondary capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of assets in U.S. and Canadian midstream energy companies. It typically holds 24 to 25 securities selected through bottom-up fundamental research on metrics such as distribution coverage, leverage, and contract quality. Top holdings often include Energy Transfer LP (ET), Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), and Targa Resources Corp (TRGP). The expense ratio is 0.69%. The fund may allocate up to 25% to MLPs taxed as partnerships while favoring companies with persistent cash flows. Rebalancing occurs as needed based on the sub-adviser’s ongoing analysis rather than a fixed index schedule.

Pacer American Energy Infrastructure ETF (USAI) Overview

USAI seeks to track the American Energy Infrastructure Index before fees and expenses. The passive strategy maintains approximately 35 holdings, with an 80% allocation to U.S. and Canadian midstream companies (often C-corporations) and 20% to MLPs. Top holdings typically feature Cheniere Energy Inc. (LNG), Energy Transfer LP (ET), Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), Williams Cos Inc. (WMB), and Enbridge Inc. (ENB). The expense ratio is 0.75%. By limiting MLP exposure below 25%, the fund maintains regulated investment company (RIC) status for potentially simpler tax treatment. The index rebalances quarterly using market-capitalization weighting within fixed categories.

Industry and Thematic Landscape

The midstream energy infrastructure sector benefits from steady U.S. and Canadian production growth in oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, driving demand for pipelines, storage, and processing assets. Capital flows into the sector reflect infrastructure needs tied to export capacity, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. Regulatory shifts around permitting, environmental standards, and tax policy for MLPs influence operations, while macroeconomic drivers such as energy prices, interest rates, and global supply dynamics affect cash flow stability. Earnings trends among major holdings remain supported by long-term contracts, though geopolitical events and shifts in energy transition policies introduce sector risks. All three ETFs operate within this environment of durable infrastructure demand offset by commodity and regulatory volatility.

Performance and Positioning Comparison

In recent market cycles, structural differences have contributed to varying behavior: AMLP’s high MLP concentration and C-corporation structure have led to distinct tax drag and sensitivity to MLP-specific distributions compared with the others. UMI’s active selection has emphasized income stability and potentially lower volatility through quality screens, while USAI’s balanced corporate-MLP mix has offered intermediate diversification. Relative positioning shows AMLP with deeper MLP exposure potentially amplifying cash flow yields but also concentration risk, UMI with active adjustments for momentum stability, and USAI with broader holdings reducing single-name risk. Performance differentials arise from expense ratios, rebalancing approaches, and varying degrees of direct commodity price exposure versus fee-based or contract-driven revenues.

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 midstream energy infrastructure exposure can apply industry filters to compare ETFs like AMLP, UMI, and USAI alongside individual holdings.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural strength, diversification profile, cost efficiency, and risk-adjusted positioning, Tickeron’s AI would currently assign the highest probability of favor to UMI. Its active management, lower expense ratio, and focus on high-quality midstream names with strong distribution coverage provide a balanced combination of income generation and reduced concentration risk relative to AMLP’s higher costs and MLP focus or USAI’s broader but passive allocation.

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

Interact to see
Advertisement
SUMMARIES
Loading...
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
AMLPUMIUSAI
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
88%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
73%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
78%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
73%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
82%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
74%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
69%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
86%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
89%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
88%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
67%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
68%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
70%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
89%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
90%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 9 days ago
75%
Bearish Trend 9 days ago
73%
Bearish Trend 9 days ago
73%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
90%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
89%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
64%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
70%
View a ticker or compare two or three
AMLP
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
UMI
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
USAI
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interact to see
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
BITI17.660.46
+2.67%
ProShares Short Bitcoin ETF (BITI)
ZVOL7.870.01
+0.13%
Volatility Premium Plus ETF
USDU27.040.01
+0.04%
WisdomTree Bloomberg US Dollar Bullish Fund (USDU)
BNJ14.20-0.10
-0.70%
Brookfield Finance I (UK) plc
EMCS46.84-0.46
-0.98%
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMCS)

AMLP and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, AMLP has been closely correlated with EPD. These tickers have moved in lockstep 71% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if AMLP jumps, then EPD could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To AMLP
1D Price
Change %
AMLP100%
-2.04%
EPD - AMLP
71%
Closely correlated
-0.94%
WES - AMLP
71%
Closely correlated
-1.36%
HESM - AMLP
71%
Closely correlated
-14.63%
ET - AMLP
70%
Closely correlated
-1.25%
CQP - AMLP
62%
Loosely correlated
-0.83%
More

UMI and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, UMI has been closely correlated with KMI. These tickers have moved in lockstep 81% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if UMI jumps, then KMI could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To UMI
1D Price
Change %
UMI100%
-1.55%
KMI - UMI
81%
Closely correlated
-1.06%
OKE - UMI
80%
Closely correlated
-1.32%
TRGP - UMI
79%
Closely correlated
-0.62%
WMB - UMI
76%
Closely correlated
-1.28%
AM - UMI
74%
Closely correlated
-1.37%
More

USAI and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, USAI has been closely correlated with OKE. These tickers have moved in lockstep 81% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if USAI jumps, then OKE could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To USAI
1D Price
Change %
USAI100%
-1.57%
OKE - USAI
81%
Closely correlated
-1.32%
KMI - USAI
78%
Closely correlated
-1.06%
TRGP - USAI
78%
Closely correlated
-0.62%
WMB - USAI
74%
Closely correlated
-1.28%
AM - USAI
74%
Closely correlated
-1.37%
More