PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMLP vs. FRDM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMLP vs. FRDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLP achieves a 14.62% return, which is significantly lower than FRDM's 44.61% return.


EMLP

1D
-0.07%
1M
-3.08%
YTD
14.62%
6M
13.20%
1Y
18.77%
3Y*
21.22%
5Y*
15.47%
10Y*
10.24%

FRDM

1D
-1.30%
1M
17.06%
YTD
44.61%
6M
53.16%
1Y
97.46%
3Y*
37.08%
5Y*
19.30%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMLP vs. FRDM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
EMLP
First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund
14.62%9.67%33.39%8.05%10.39%23.20%-13.36%4.94%
FRDM
Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
44.61%61.27%1.70%22.77%-14.45%6.13%16.90%12.33%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLP and FRDM 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

0.27

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2019

0.43

Over the past year, the correlation between EMLP and FRDM has dropped to 0.06 - well below their long-term average of 0.43, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

EMLP vs. FRDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMLP
FRDM

Energy

48.1%
0.1%

Utilities

47.4%
2.6%

Industrials

3.9%
8.6%

Basic Materials

0.6%
7.4%

Communication Services

-

3.9%

Consumer Cyclical

-

7.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.2%

Financial Services

-

22.1%

Healthcare

-

1.8%

Real Estate

-

2.5%

Technology

-

41.1%

Energy

EMLP
48.1%
FRDM
0.1%

Utilities

EMLP
47.4%
FRDM
2.6%

Industrials

EMLP
3.9%
FRDM
8.6%

Basic Materials

EMLP
0.6%
FRDM
7.4%

Communication Services

EMLP

-

FRDM
3.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EMLP

-

FRDM
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

EMLP

-

FRDM
2.2%

Financial Services

EMLP

-

FRDM
22.1%

Healthcare

EMLP

-

FRDM
1.8%

Real Estate

EMLP

-

FRDM
2.5%

Technology

EMLP

-

FRDM
41.1%

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

EMLP vs. FRDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMLP
EMLP Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EMLP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLP Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLP Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLP Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLP Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

FRDM
FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EMLP vs. FRDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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.


EMLPFRDMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.93

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.67

-0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.82

5.81

-1.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.42

23.37

-10.95

EMLP vs. FRDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMLP Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is lower than the FRDM Sharpe Ratio of 4.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLP and FRDM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EMLPFRDMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.89

4.00

-2.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.07

0.93

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.57

0.85

-0.29

Drawdowns

EMLP vs. FRDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLP drawdown since its inception was -43.61%, which is greater than FRDM's maximum drawdown of -40.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLP and FRDM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMLPFRDMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.61%

-40.49%

-3.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.94%

-16.87%

+11.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.47%

-16.87%

+5.40%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.59%

-29.25%

+14.66%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.61%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.62%

-1.30%

-2.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.76%

-7.09%

+1.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.52%

4.18%

-2.66%

Volatility

EMLP vs. FRDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) is 4.10%, while Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a volatility of 11.03%. This indicates that EMLP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMLPFRDMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.10%

11.03%

-6.93%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.87%

21.65%

-13.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.97%

24.50%

-14.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.53%

20.80%

-6.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.69%

22.77%

-5.08%

EMLP vs. FRDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMLP has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than FRDM's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMLP vs. FRDM - Dividend Comparison

EMLP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.79%, more than FRDM's 1.51% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMLP
First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund
2.79%3.18%3.19%3.92%3.15%3.29%4.70%3.71%4.71%3.80%3.62%4.63%
FRDM
Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
1.51%2.26%2.53%2.66%2.72%2.17%1.11%1.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMLP and FRDM 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.

FRDM has higher volatility (11.03%) compared to EMLP (4.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMLP dropped -43.61% vs FRDM's -40.49%.

On 5-year performance, FRDM leads with 19.30% vs 15.47% for EMLP. On fees, FRDM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EMLP has been the lower-risk option at 4.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FRDM has performed better with a 19.30% return vs 15.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FRDM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for EMLP.

EMLP has the higher dividend yield at 2.79%, compared with 1.51% for FRDM.

EMLP is categorized as MLPs, while FRDM is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Freedom Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for EMLP and 0.49% for FRDM.

FRDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.00 vs 1.89), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMLP and FRDM

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