AMZW vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

AMZW (Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMZW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. AMZW is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, AMZW returned 13.96% vs 23.59% for ENFR. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. AMZW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

AMZW vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) 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, AMZW achieves a 4.20% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 21.84% return.

AMZW

• 1D: 3.06%
• 1M: -11.47%
• YTD: 4.20%
• 6M: 6.06%
• 1Y: 13.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -5.96%
• YTD: 21.84%
• 6M: 24.56%
• 1Y: 23.59%
• 3Y*: 26.56%
• 5Y*: 19.88%
• 10Y*: 11.69%

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

AMZW vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	4.20%	7.33%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	21.84%	1.82%

Correlation

The correlation between AMZW 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 Jun 18, 2025	-0.16

AMZW vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMZW	ENFR
Consumer Cyclical	24.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	98.5%
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	3.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

AMZW vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

AMZW

AMZW Risk / Return Rank: 14
AMZW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
AMZW Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
AMZW Omega Ratio Rank: 14
AMZW Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
AMZW Martin Ratio Rank: 13

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 50
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 46
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	AMZW	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.32	1.64	-1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.71	2.29	-1.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.28	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	2.80	-2.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.01	7.23	-6.21

AMZW vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AMZW Sharpe Ratio is 0.32, which is lower than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AMZW 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

AMZW vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AMZW drawdown since its inception was -26.79%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMZW and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	AMZW	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.79%	-68.28%	+41.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.79%	-8.64%	-18.15%
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	-14.19%	-7.06%	-7.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.08%	-15.94%	+6.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.70%	3.34%	+8.36%

Volatility

AMZW vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF (AMZW) has a higher volatility of 11.54% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 5.34%. This indicates that AMZW'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

	AMZW	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.54%	5.34%	+6.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.75%	11.57%	+14.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.07%	14.77%	+22.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.07%	19.25%	+17.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.07%	24.67%	+12.40%

AMZW vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

AMZW vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

AMZW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 46.05%, more than ENFR's 4.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AMZW Roundhill AMZN WeeklyPay ETF	46.05%	25.29%	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	4.12%	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 AMZW and ENFR in my portfolio?

AMZW 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, AMZW or ENFR?

AMZW has higher volatility (11.54%) compared to ENFR (5.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AMZW dropped -26.79% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, AMZW or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 23.59% vs 13.96% for AMZW. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 5.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AMZW or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 23.59% return vs 13.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AMZW or ENFR?

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

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

AMZW has the higher dividend yield at 46.05%, compared with 4.12% for ENFR.

What is the main difference between AMZW and ENFR?

AMZW is categorized as Derivative Income, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AMZW and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 0.32), 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.