Expense Ratio Rating
5 /10
Expense Rating
4 /10
Market Score
0 /10
Category Score
0 /10
Market Size
0 /10
$UAG Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 74 Commodities Focused funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- jjc
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
iPath Series B Bloomberg Copper Subindex Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- oilk
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
ProShares K-1 Free Crude Oil Strategy ETF
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- cow
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
iPath Series B Bloomberg Livestock Subindex Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- aoil
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
Aberdeen Standard Bloomberg WTI Crude Oil Strategy K-1 Free ETF
Expenses: 0.39% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- usv
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
UBS ETRACS CMCI Silver Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.40% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- bal
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
iPath Series B Bloomberg Cotton Subindex Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- jjn
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
iPath Series B Bloomberg Nickel Subindex Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- gldi
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
Credit Suisse X-Links Gold Shares Covered Call ETN
Expenses: 0.65% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »
- jjp
- ETF
- Commodities
- Focused
iPath Series B Bloomberg Precious Metals Subindex Total Return ETN
Expenses: 0.45% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Focused Commodities fund. See why »