AMZW vs. EINC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AMZW (Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF) and EINC (VanEck Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMZW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill, while EINC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS North America Energy Infrastructure Index. AMZW is actively managed, while EINC is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZW returned 9.58% vs 29.82% for EINC. At a correlation of -0.18, they often move in opposite directions. AMZW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EINC.

Performance

AMZW vs. EINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AMZW achieves a -0.54% return, which is significantly lower than EINC's 25.97% return.

AMZW

• 1D: 0.97%
• 1M: -14.72%
• YTD: -0.54%
• 6M: -1.35%
• 1Y: 9.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EINC

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: -4.50%
• YTD: 25.97%
• 6M: 25.98%
• 1Y: 29.82%
• 3Y*: 30.36%
• 5Y*: 21.18%
• 10Y*: 12.03%

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

AMZW vs. EINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	-0.54%	7.33%
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	25.97%	2.94%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZW and EINC is -0.18, 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	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	-0.18

AMZW vs. EINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMZW	EINC
Consumer Cyclical	24.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	99.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	2.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

AMZW vs. EINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZW

AMZW Risk / Return Rank: 13
AMZW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
AMZW Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
AMZW Omega Ratio Rank: 13
AMZW Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
AMZW Martin Ratio Rank: 12

EINC

EINC Risk / Return Rank: 64
EINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
EINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
EINC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
EINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EINC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

AMZW vs. EINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). 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.

	AMZW	EINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.26	1.99	-1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.62	2.67	-2.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.35	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	3.80	-3.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.81	9.63	-8.82

AMZW vs. EINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZW Sharpe Ratio is 0.26, which is lower than the EINC Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZW and EINC, 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

AMZW vs. EINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZW drawdown since its inception was -26.79%, smaller than the maximum EINC drawdown of -87.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZW and EINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZW	EINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.79%	-87.55%	+60.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.79%	-7.89%	-18.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-68.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.09%	-4.50%	-13.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.16%	-44.15%	+34.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.82%	3.10%	+8.72%

Volatility

AMZW vs. EINC - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) has a higher volatility of 12.07% compared to VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) at 6.51%. This indicates that AMZW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AMZW	EINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.07%	6.51%	+5.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.19%	11.88%	+14.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.44%	15.10%	+22.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.35%	19.54%	+17.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.35%	25.43%	+11.92%

AMZW vs. EINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMZW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than EINC's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMZW vs. EINC - Dividend Comparison

AMZW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 49.07%, more than EINC's 3.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	49.07%	25.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	3.51%	4.51%	3.33%	3.77%	2.89%	6.03%	6.69%	9.66%	11.31%	8.53%	9.71%	28.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AMZW and EINC in my portfolio?

AMZW and EINC have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AMZW or EINC?

AMZW has higher volatility (12.07%) compared to EINC (6.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZW dropped -26.79% vs EINC's -87.55%.

Which ETF is better, AMZW or EINC?

On 1-year performance, EINC leads with 29.82% vs 9.58% for AMZW. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, EINC has been the lower-risk option at 6.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZW or EINC?

Over the 1-year period, EINC has performed better with a 29.82% return vs 9.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZW or EINC?

EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AMZW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AMZW or EINC?

AMZW has the higher dividend yield at 49.07%, compared with 3.51% for EINC.

What is the main difference between AMZW and EINC?

AMZW is categorized as Derivative Income, while EINC is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AMZW and 0.45% for EINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 0.26), 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.