EFRA vs. USNG

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

EFRA (iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF) and USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. EFRA is passively managed, while USNG is actively managed. Over the past year, EFRA returned 14.06% vs 32.36% for USNG. Their 0.23 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EFRA charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for USNG.

Performance

EFRA vs. USNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) and Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFRA achieves a 10.64% return, which is significantly lower than USNG's 26.87% return.

EFRA

• 1D: 1.77%
• 1M: 1.39%
• 6M: 4.01%
• YTD: 10.64%
• 1Y: 14.06%
• 3Y*: 12.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.08%

USNG

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: -2.11%
• 6M: 12.98%
• YTD: 26.87%
• 1Y: 32.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 32.30%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	$35.39K	$37.20K	$24.57K
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	$387.47K	$271.98K	$161.10K

EFRA vs. USNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	10.64%	4.66%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	26.87%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between EFRA and USNG is 0.24, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	0.23

EFRA vs. USNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFRA	USNG
Industrials	62.3%	7.7%
Utilities	24.8%	5.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.1%	-
Basic Materials	3.6%	1.5%
Technology	1.7%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	80.9%
Financial Services	-	4.7%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EFRA vs. USNG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EFRA

EFRA Risk / Return Rank: 33
EFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
EFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
EFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 31
EFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
EFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 32

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 70
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 66
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EFRA vs. USNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) and Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). 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.

	EFRA	USNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	1.86	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	2.60	-1.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.32	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.26	2.72	-1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.23	10.86	-7.62

EFRA vs. USNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFRA Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the USNG Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFRA and USNG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EFRA vs. USNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFRA drawdown since its inception was -16.25%, which is greater than USNG's maximum drawdown of -11.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFRA and USNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFRA	USNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.25%	-11.93%	-4.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.20%	-11.93%	+0.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.95%	-7.43%	+5.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.68%	-1.89%	-1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.36%	3.01%	+1.35%

Volatility

EFRA vs. USNG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) is 4.43%, while Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) has a volatility of 6.45%. This indicates that EFRA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFRA	USNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.43%	6.45%	-2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.98%	13.82%	-1.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	17.46%	-2.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.56%	17.25%	-1.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	17.25%	-1.69%

EFRA vs. USNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFRA has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than USNG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFRA vs. USNG - Dividend Comparison

EFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.99%, more than USNG's 1.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	3.99%	4.34%	3.79%	1.85%	0.14%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.52%	1.10%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFRA and USNG in my portfolio?

EFRA and USNG have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFRA or USNG?

USNG has higher volatility (6.45%) compared to EFRA (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFRA dropped -16.25% vs USNG's -11.93%.

Which ETF is better, EFRA or USNG?

On 1-year performance, USNG leads with 32.36% vs 14.06% for EFRA. On fees, EFRA is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, EFRA has been the lower-risk option at 4.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFRA or USNG?

Over the 1-year period, USNG has performed better with a 32.36% return vs 14.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFRA or USNG?

EFRA is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for USNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EFRA or USNG?

EFRA has the higher dividend yield at 3.99%, compared with 1.52% for USNG.

What is the main difference between EFRA and USNG?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EFRA and 0.59% for USNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USNG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 0.94), 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.