CMGG vs. ENFR
CMGG (Leverage Shares 2X Long CMG Daily ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMGG is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by Leverage Shares, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. CMGG is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. CMGG charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.
Performance
CMGG vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMGG achieves a -34.81% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 23.18% return.
CMGG
- 1D
- 4.34%
- 1M
- -9.17%
- YTD
- -34.81%
- 6M
- -37.93%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ENFR
- 1D
- -1.40%
- 1M
- -5.86%
- YTD
- 23.18%
- 6M
- 23.40%
- 1Y
- 25.06%
- 3Y*
- 28.30%
- 5Y*
- 19.73%
- 10Y*
- 11.82%
CMGG vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CMGG Leverage Shares 2X Long CMG Daily ETF | -34.81% | 36.20% |
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 23.18% | 0.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMGG and ENFR is -0.08, 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 | -0.08 |
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
CMGG vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank
CMGG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ENFR
CMGG vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 2X Long CMG Daily ETF (CMGG) 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.
| CMGG | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.29 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.91 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.39 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CMGG vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMGG drawdown since its inception was -56.75%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG and ENFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMGG | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.75% | -68.28% | +11.53% |
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 | -45.94% | -6.04% | -39.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.52% | -15.93% | -7.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.40% | — |
Volatility
CMGG vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMGG | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.68% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.71% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 68.93% | 14.91% | +54.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 68.93% | 19.26% | +49.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 68.93% | 24.68% | +44.25% |
CMGG vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMGG has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMGG vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison
CMGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMGG Leverage Shares 2X Long CMG Daily 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 | 4.07% | 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
CMGG and ENFR have a correlation of -0.08, 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 0.75% for CMGG.
ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.07%, compared with 0.00% for CMGG.
CMGG is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CMGG and 0.35% for ENFR.
Find the right allocation for CMGG 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