PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ENFR vs. CWW.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ENFR vs. CWW.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) and CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index, while CWW.TO is a Water Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ENFR returned 11.98%/yr vs 8.23%/yr for CWW.TO. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ENFR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.66%/yr for CWW.TO.

Performance

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) and iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ENFR is traded in USD, while CWW.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CWW.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ENFR achieves a 24.93% return, which is significantly higher than CWW.TO's 0.78% return. Over the past 10 years, ENFR has outperformed CWW.TO with an annualized return of 11.98%, while CWW.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 8.23% annualized return.

ENFR

1D
1.51%
1M
-4.52%
YTD
24.93%
6M
25.03%
1Y
27.76%
3Y*
28.90%
5Y*
20.07%
10Y*
11.98%

CWW.TO

1D
0.58%
1M
1.13%
YTD
0.78%
6M
-1.55%
1Y
2.80%
3Y*
5.41%
5Y*
2.09%
10Y*
8.23%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		24.93%5.88%42.17%15.63%17.48%39.97%-24.14%21.60%-18.67%-0.19%
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		0.78%15.41%-4.95%14.48%-21.37%27.63%15.89%32.56%-9.85%26.75%

Correlation

The correlation between ENFR and CWW.TO is -0.01, 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

-0.01

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.14

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

0.21

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2013

0.25

The correlation between ENFR and CWW.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.26 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ENFR
CWW.TO

Energy

98.5%
1.7%

Industrials

3.4%
44.6%

Utilities

1.4%
45.8%

Financial Services

0.1%

-

Basic Materials

-

6.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

0.5%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

0.2%

Technology

-

1.2%

Energy

ENFR
98.5%
CWW.TO
1.7%

Industrials

ENFR
3.4%
CWW.TO
44.6%

Utilities

ENFR
1.4%
CWW.TO
45.8%

Financial Services

ENFR
0.1%
CWW.TO

-

Basic Materials

ENFR

-

CWW.TO
6.0%

Communication Services

ENFR

-

CWW.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

ENFR

-

CWW.TO
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

ENFR

-

CWW.TO

-

Healthcare

ENFR

-

CWW.TO

-

Real Estate

ENFR

-

CWW.TO
0.2%

Technology

ENFR

-

CWW.TO
1.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF

iShares Global Water Index ETF

Often compared with ENFR:
ENFR vs. AMLPENFR vs. MLPXENFR vs. TPYPENFR vs. UMIENFR vs. EMLPENFR vs. MPLXENFR vs. ATMP
Often compared with CWW.TO:
CWW.TO vs. FIWCWW.TO vs. COW.TOCWW.TO vs. CIF.TOCWW.TO vs. KBWBCWW.TO vs. VFV.TOCWW.TO vs. XAW.TOCWW.TO vs. VCR

Return for Risk

ENFR vs. CWW.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ENFR
ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
CWW.TO
CWW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
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.

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) and iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO). 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.

ENFRCWW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.88
0.20

+1.68

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.59
0.39

+2.20

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.04

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.23

0.26

+2.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.24

0.61

+7.63

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ENFR Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is higher than the CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ENFR and CWW.TO, 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...

Drawdowns

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ENFR drawdown since its inception was -68.28%, which is greater than CWW.TO's maximum drawdown of -58.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENFR and CWW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ENFRCWW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-68.28%

-58.39%

-9.89%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.64%

-10.77%

+2.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.58%

-27.70%

+12.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.29%

-34.38%

+14.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.64%

-35.26%

-27.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.71%

-10.71%

+6.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.94%

-12.73%

-3.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.38%

4.62%

-1.24%

Volatility

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Volatility Comparison

Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a higher volatility of 5.69% compared to iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) at 3.45%. This indicates that ENFR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CWW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ENFRCWW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.69%

3.45%

+2.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.60%

10.89%

+0.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.86%

14.11%

+0.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.25%

25.25%

-6.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.68%

23.91%

+0.77%

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ENFR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CWW.TO's 0.66% expense ratio.

Dividends

ENFR vs. CWW.TO - Dividend Comparison

ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%, more than CWW.TO's 1.52% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		1.52%1.37%1.14%1.21%1.43%2.96%1.27%1.42%3.38%1.61%1.55%1.32%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF		4.02%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

ENFR and CWW.TO have a correlation of -0.01, 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 0.66% for CWW.TO.

ENFR is categorized as Energy Equities, while CWW.TO is Water Equities. ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index, while CWW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for ENFR and 0.66% for CWW.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ENFR and CWW.TO

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