CENT vs. ET
CENT (Central Garden & Pet Company) and ET (Energy Transfer LP) are both stocks. CENT operates in Packaged Foods (Consumer Defensive), while ET operates in Oil & Gas Midstream (Energy). Over the past 10 years, CENT returned 10.16%/yr vs 12.38%/yr for ET. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CENT vs. ET - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CENT achieves a 24.91% return, which is significantly higher than ET's 21.86% return. Over the past 10 years, CENT has underperformed ET with an annualized return of 10.16%, while ET has yielded a comparatively higher 12.38% annualized return.
CENT
- 1D
- 1.47%
- 1M
- 9.04%
- YTD
- 24.91%
- 6M
- 19.81%
- 1Y
- 14.25%
- 3Y*
- 10.98%
- 5Y*
- -1.31%
- 10Y*
- 10.16%
ET
- 1D
- -1.17%
- 1M
- -0.73%
- YTD
- 21.86%
- 6M
- 19.61%
- 1Y
- 18.22%
- 3Y*
- 23.96%
- 5Y*
- 21.70%
- 10Y*
- 12.38%
CENT vs. ET - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CENT Central Garden & Pet Company | 24.91% | -17.14% | -1.12% | 33.81% | -28.84% | 36.31% | 24.27% | -9.81% | -11.49% | 17.62% |
ET Energy Transfer LP | 21.86% | -9.37% | 53.87% | 27.87% | 55.74% | 42.96% | -44.92% | 5.88% | -17.74% | -4.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between CENT and ET is 0.06, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2006 | 0.21 |
The correlation between CENT and ET shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (1 year) to 0.22 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CENT:
$2.49B
ET:
$67.04B
CENT:
$2.74
ET:
$1.36
CENT:
14.68
ET:
14.25
CENT:
0.80
ET:
0.77
CENT:
1.51
ET:
1.35
CENT:
$3.16B
ET:
$89.38B
CENT:
$1.02B
ET:
$20.48B
CENT:
$268.85M
ET:
$13.02B
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
CENT vs. ET — Risk / Return Rank
CENT
ET
CENT vs. ET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) and Energy Transfer LP (ET). 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.
| CENT | ET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.20 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.49 | 1.83 | -1.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.96 | 4.00 | -3.04 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CENT | ET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.47 | 1.13 | -0.67 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.04 | 0.88 | -0.92 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | 0.35 | -0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.16 | 0.36 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
CENT vs. ET - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CENT drawdown since its inception was -86.96%, roughly equal to the maximum ET drawdown of -87.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CENT and ET.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CENT | ET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -86.96% | -87.81% | +0.85% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.44% | -10.02% | -19.42% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.77% | -24.56% | -14.21% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.77% | -25.82% | -12.95% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -49.71% | -72.82% | +23.11% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.15% | -4.90% | -10.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -36.10% | -25.74% | -10.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.87% | 4.56% | +10.31% |
Volatility
CENT vs. ET - Volatility Comparison
Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT) has a higher volatility of 8.48% compared to Energy Transfer LP (ET) at 5.27%. This indicates that CENT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CENT | ET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.48% | 5.27% | +3.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.84% | 11.84% | +6.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.59% | 16.16% | +14.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.99% | 24.87% | +6.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.73% | 35.04% | -0.31% |
Dividends
CENT vs. ET - Dividend Comparison
CENT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.88%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CENT Central Garden & Pet Company | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ET Energy Transfer LP | 6.88% | 7.97% | 6.51% | 8.95% | 7.33% | 7.41% | 17.27% | 9.51% | 9.24% | 6.66% | 5.90% | 7.42% |
Financials
CENT vs. ET - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Central Garden & Pet Company and Energy Transfer LP. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
CENT vs. ET - Profitability Comparison
CENT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Central Garden & Pet Company reported a gross profit of 299.56M and revenue of 906.15M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 33.1%.
ET - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a gross profit of 6.62B and revenue of 27.77B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 23.9%.
CENT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Central Garden & Pet Company reported an operating income of 113.94M and revenue of 906.15M, resulting in an operating margin of 12.6%.
ET - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported an operating income of 2.98B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in an operating margin of 10.7%.
CENT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Central Garden & Pet Company reported a net income of 79.42M and revenue of 906.15M, resulting in a net margin of 8.8%.
ET - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a net income of 1.25B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in a net margin of 4.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CENT and ET have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CENT has higher volatility (8.48%) compared to ET (5.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CENT dropped -86.96% vs ET's -87.81%.
ET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.13 vs 0.47), 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.
Find the right allocation for CENT and ET
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