AMZP vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AMZP (Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMZP is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Kurv, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. AMZP is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZP returned 23.84% vs 26.54% for ENFR. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMZP charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

AMZP vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) 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, AMZP achieves a 8.22% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.47% return.

AMZP

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: -5.00%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 23.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 1.21%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 24.47%
• 6M: 25.55%
• 1Y: 26.54%
• 3Y*: 27.95%
• 5Y*: 20.27%
• 10Y*: 11.95%

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

AMZP vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	8.22%	9.56%	37.42%	7.73%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.47%	5.88%	42.17%	3.12%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZP and ENFR is -0.20, 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	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2023	0.05

The correlation between AMZP and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to 0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

AMZP vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZP

AMZP Risk / Return Rank: 23
AMZP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Omega Ratio Rank: 24
AMZP Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
AMZP Martin Ratio Rank: 22

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 54
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 49
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

AMZP vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) 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.

	AMZP	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	1.82	-0.99
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	2.50	-1.22
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.31	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.05	3.25	-2.20
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.71	8.93	-6.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AMZP vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZP Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZP 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMZP	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83	1.82	-0.99
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.34	+0.58

Drawdowns

AMZP vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZP drawdown since its inception was -27.36%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZP and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZP	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.36%	-68.28%	+40.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.64%	-8.64%	-15.00%
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	-7.65%	-5.05%	-2.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.02%	-15.99%	+9.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.15%	3.15%	+6.00%

Volatility

AMZP vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF (AMZP) has a higher volatility of 8.11% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 6.30%. This indicates that AMZP'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

	AMZP	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.11%	6.30%	+1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.00%	11.48%	+10.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.99%	14.69%	+14.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.81%	19.30%	+7.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.81%	24.69%	+2.12%

AMZP vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZP has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMZP vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

AMZP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.00%, more than ENFR's 4.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AMZP Kurv Yield Premium Strategy Amazon AMZN ETF	19.00%	22.04%	15.15%	2.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.03%	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 AMZP and ENFR in my portfolio?

AMZP and ENFR have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZP or ENFR?

AMZP has higher volatility (8.11%) compared to ENFR (6.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZP dropped -27.36% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, AMZP or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 26.54% vs 23.84% for AMZP. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 6.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZP or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 26.54% return vs 23.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZP or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AMZP.

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

AMZP has the higher dividend yield at 19.00%, compared with 4.03% for ENFR.

What is the main difference between AMZP and ENFR?

AMZP is categorized as Options Trading, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Kurv and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AMZP and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 0.83), 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.