CL=F vs. FANG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CL=F (Crude Oil WTI) is an asset, while FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, CL=F returned 6.75%/yr vs 11.38%/yr for FANG. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

CL=F vs. FANG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Crude Oil WTI (CL=F) and Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CL=F achieves a 62.64% return, which is significantly higher than FANG's 36.19% return. Over the past 10 years, CL=F has underperformed FANG with an annualized return of 6.75%, while FANG has yielded a comparatively higher 11.38% annualized return.

CL=F

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -8.39%
• YTD: 62.64%
• 6M: 59.26%
• 1Y: 49.38%
• 3Y*: 9.14%
• 5Y*: 6.36%
• 10Y*: 6.75%

FANG

• 1D: 1.69%
• 1M: -1.99%
• YTD: 36.19%
• 6M: 31.25%
• 1Y: 50.90%
• 3Y*: 19.82%
• 5Y*: 23.66%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

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

CL=F vs. FANG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CL=F Crude Oil WTI	62.64%	-19.41%	-0.82%	-10.70%	7.44%	53.98%	-19.98%	32.92%	-24.35%	12.51%
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc.	36.19%	-5.64%	10.35%	19.66%	35.34%	127.51%	-46.00%	0.92%	-26.35%	24.93%

Correlation

The correlation between CL=F and FANG is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2012	0.53

The correlation between CL=F and FANG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CL=F vs. FANG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CL=F

CL=F Risk / Return Rank: 28
CL=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
CL=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CL=F Omega Ratio Rank: 24
CL=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
CL=F Martin Ratio Rank: 32

FANG

FANG Risk / Return Rank: 82
FANG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FANG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FANG Omega Ratio Rank: 75
FANG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FANG Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

CL=F vs. FANG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Crude Oil WTI (CL=F) and Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG). 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.

	CL=F	FANG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	1.66	-0.77
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.24	-0.86
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.27	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.49	4.33	-2.84
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.14	8.64	-5.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CL=F vs. FANG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CL=F Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the FANG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CL=F and FANG, 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

	CL=F	FANG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89	1.66	-0.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16	0.63	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.13	0.23	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.06	0.47	-0.41

Drawdowns

CL=F vs. FANG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CL=F drawdown since its inception was -92.04%, roughly equal to the maximum FANG drawdown of -88.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CL=F and FANG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CL=F	FANG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.04%	-88.72%	-3.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.07%	-12.53%	-14.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-39.46%	-42.10%	+2.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.86%	-42.10%	-11.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-84.82%	-88.72%	+3.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.72%	-4.76%	-30.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-40.81%	-19.40%	-21.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.23%	6.28%	+5.95%

Volatility

CL=F vs. FANG - Volatility Comparison

Crude Oil WTI (CL=F) has a higher volatility of 17.06% compared to Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) at 11.04%. This indicates that CL=F's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FANG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CL=F	FANG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.06%	11.04%	+6.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.43%	22.59%	+23.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	49.20%	30.83%	+18.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.88%	37.84%	+1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.55%	49.02%	+0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CL=F and FANG in my portfolio?

CL=F and FANG have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CL=F or FANG?

CL=F has higher volatility (17.06%) compared to FANG (11.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CL=F dropped -92.04% vs FANG's -88.72%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FANG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 0.89), 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.