AGRW vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AGRW (Allspring LT Large Growth ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AGRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Allspring, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. AGRW is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, AGRW returned 15.11% vs 27.76% for ENFR. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

AGRW vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGRW achieves a 2.53% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.

AGRW

• 1D: -1.72%
• 1M: -3.72%
• YTD: 2.53%
• 6M: 1.76%
• 1Y: 15.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 1.51%
• 1M: -4.52%
• YTD: 24.93%
• 6M: 25.03%
• 1Y: 27.76%
• 3Y*: 28.90%
• 5Y*: 20.07%
• 10Y*: 11.98%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGRW vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	2.53%	23.36%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.93%	-1.62%

Correlation

The correlation between AGRW and ENFR is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	-0.02

The correlation between AGRW and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to -0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

AGRW vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AGRW

AGRW Risk / Return Rank: 25
AGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
AGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
AGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 26
AGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
AGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 24

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 57
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 54
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 50

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AGRW vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AGRW	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.91	1.88	-0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.31	2.59	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.32	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.92	3.23	-2.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.97	8.24	-5.27

AGRW vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is lower than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGRW and ENFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AGRW vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGRW drawdown since its inception was -16.46%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGRW and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGRW	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.46%	-68.28%	+51.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-8.64%	-7.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.58%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-62.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.97%	-4.71%	-3.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.38%	-15.94%	+12.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.10%	3.38%	+1.72%

Volatility

AGRW vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) has a higher volatility of 6.66% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 5.69%. This indicates that AGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGRW	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.66%	5.69%	+0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.33%	11.60%	+1.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.67%	14.86%	+1.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.11%	19.25%	+2.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.11%	24.68%	-2.57%

AGRW vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both AGRW and ENFR have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

AGRW vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

AGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than ENFR's 4.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	0.12%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.02%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGRW and ENFR in my portfolio?

AGRW and ENFR have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AGRW or ENFR?

AGRW has higher volatility (6.66%) compared to ENFR (5.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRW dropped -16.46% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, AGRW or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 27.76% vs 15.11% for AGRW. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 5.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGRW or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 27.76% return vs 15.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGRW or ENFR?

AGRW and ENFR have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGRW or ENFR?

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.12% for AGRW.

What is the main difference between AGRW and ENFR?

AGRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Allspring and SS&C.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 0.91), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.