CSEN vs. EIPX

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

CSEN (Cohen & Steers Future of Energy Active ETF) and EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CSEN charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for EIPX.

Performance

CSEN vs. EIPX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cohen & Steers Future of Energy Active ETF (CSEN) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CSEN

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -0.75%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EIPX

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 1.39%
• 6M: 20.22%
• YTD: 23.81%
• 1Y: 28.78%
• 3Y*: 20.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CSEN vs. EIPX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CSEN Cohen & Steers Future of Energy Active ETF	-0.75%
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	1.39%

Correlation

The correlation between CSEN and EIPX is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2026	0.54

Return for Risk

CSEN vs. EIPX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSEN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 91
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

CSEN vs. EIPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Future of Energy Active ETF (CSEN) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). 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.

	CSEN	EIPX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.53	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.62	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.43	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	5.59	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	15.60	—

Drawdowns

CSEN vs. EIPX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSEN drawdown since its inception was -5.10%, smaller than the maximum EIPX drawdown of -15.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSEN and EIPX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSEN	EIPX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.10%	-15.43%	+10.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-5.17%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	-1.10%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.76%	-2.30%	-0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.85%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CSEN	EIPX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	4.18%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.77%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.52%	11.43%	+4.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.52%	15.01%	+0.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.52%	15.01%	+0.51%

CSEN vs. EIPX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSEN has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than EIPX's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CSEN vs. EIPX - Dividend Comparison

CSEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than EIPX's 2.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CSEN Cohen & Steers Future of Energy Active ETF	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.71%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSEN and EIPX in my portfolio?

CSEN and EIPX have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CSEN or EIPX?

On fees, CSEN is cheaper at 0.80% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSEN or EIPX?

CSEN is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CSEN or EIPX?

EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.71%, compared with 0.33% for CSEN.

What is the main difference between CSEN and EIPX?

They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for CSEN and 0.95% for EIPX.