BBHM vs. ENFR
BBHM (BBH Select Mid Cap ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BBHM is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Actively Managed, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.09, they often move in opposite directions. BBHM charges 0.81%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.
Performance
BBHM vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BBHM achieves a 3.11% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.
BBHM
- 1D
- -0.85%
- 1M
- 2.63%
- YTD
- 3.11%
- 6M
- 1.63%
- 1Y
- —
- 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%
BBHM vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BBHM BBH Select Mid Cap ETF | 3.11% | 0.98% |
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 24.93% | 0.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between BBHM and ENFR is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2025 | -0.09 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BBHM vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank
BBHM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ENFR
BBHM vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BBH Select Mid Cap ETF (BBHM) 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.
| BBHM | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.32 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.23 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.24 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BBHM vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BBHM drawdown since its inception was -9.78%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBHM and ENFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BBHM | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -9.78% | -68.28% | +58.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.64% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.05% | -4.71% | +0.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.97% | -15.94% | +12.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.38% | — |
Volatility
BBHM vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BBHM | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.69% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.60% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.20% | 14.86% | +3.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.20% | 19.25% | -1.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.20% | 24.68% | -6.48% |
BBHM vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
BBHM has a 0.81% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
BBHM vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison
BBHM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BBHM BBH Select Mid Cap ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
BBHM and ENFR have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.81% for BBHM.
ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.00% for BBHM.
BBHM is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. BBHM tracks Actively Managed, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: BBH and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.81% for BBHM and 0.35% for ENFR.
Find the right allocation for BBHM and ENFR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer