AMNA vs. CEFD

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN (AMNA) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD).

AMNA and CEFD are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. AMNA is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. It was launched on Jun 19, 2020. CEFD is a passively managed fund by UBS that tracks the performance of the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). It was launched on Jun 2, 2020. Both AMNA and CEFD are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

AMNA vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN (AMNA) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

AMNA vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AMNA ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN	0.00%	0.00%	44.30%	12.50%	20.41%	36.44%	2.88%
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	-5.27%	14.15%	20.06%	8.36%	-28.93%	22.09%	21.37%

Returns By Period

AMNA

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEFD

• 1D: 4.24%
• 1M: -8.24%
• YTD: -5.27%
• 6M: -4.15%
• 1Y: 8.28%
• 3Y*: 11.04%
• 5Y*: 2.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

AMNA vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMNA has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFD's 0.95% expense ratio.

CEFD

ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN

AMNA

ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN

Return for Risk

AMNA vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFD

CEFD Risk / Return Rank: 27
CEFD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CEFD Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
CEFD Omega Ratio Rank: 32
CEFD Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CEFD Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

AMNA vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN (AMNA) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMNA	CEFD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	0.40	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.13	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	0.41	—

Correlation

The correlation between AMNA and CEFD is 0.45, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

AMNA vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison

AMNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 16.09%.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AMNA ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Index ETN	0.00%	0.00%	4.32%	5.61%	5.48%	5.84%	2.12%
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN	16.09%	14.88%	13.90%	14.76%	16.56%	10.31%	5.37%

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	AMNA	CEFD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-36.95%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-16.13%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-8.80%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-12.02%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.56%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AMNA	CEFD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	8.66%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	10.82%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	20.62%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	17.83%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	17.40%	—