ENFR vs. MGNR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) and MGNR (American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. ENFR is passively managed, while MGNR is actively managed. Over the past year, ENFR returned 25.40% vs 74.12% for MGNR. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ENFR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for MGNR.

Performance

ENFR vs. MGNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) and American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ENFR achieves a 24.60% return, which is significantly lower than MGNR's 25.90% return.

ENFR

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -1.01%
• YTD: 24.60%
• 6M: 24.41%
• 1Y: 25.40%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 19.91%
• 10Y*: 11.96%

MGNR

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: 3.52%
• YTD: 25.90%
• 6M: 27.71%
• 1Y: 74.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ENFR vs. MGNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.60%	5.88%	44.04%
MGNR American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF	25.90%	50.57%	22.78%

Correlation

The correlation between ENFR and MGNR is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2024	0.46

Over the past year, the correlation between ENFR and MGNR has dropped to 0.19 - well below their long-term average of 0.46, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

ENFR vs. MGNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 50
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 47
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 48

MGNR

MGNR Risk / Return Rank: 89
MGNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
MGNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
MGNR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
MGNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
MGNR Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. MGNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) and American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR). 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.

	ENFR	MGNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	3.24	-1.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	3.77	-1.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.53	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	6.02	-3.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.06	24.36	-16.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ENFR vs. MGNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ENFR Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the MGNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ENFR and MGNR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ENFR	MGNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.75	3.24	-1.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.34	1.77	-1.42

Drawdowns

ENFR vs. MGNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ENFR drawdown since its inception was -68.28%, which is greater than MGNR's maximum drawdown of -22.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENFR and MGNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ENFR	MGNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.28%	-22.06%	-46.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.64%	-12.38%	+3.74%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.95%	-1.76%	-3.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.98%	-3.86%	-12.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.16%	3.05%	+0.11%

Volatility

ENFR vs. MGNR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) is 6.18%, while American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR) has a volatility of 6.59%. This indicates that ENFR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MGNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ENFR	MGNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.18%	6.59%	-0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.47%	17.67%	-6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.64%	23.04%	-8.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.30%	25.03%	-5.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.69%	25.03%	-0.34%

ENFR vs. MGNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ENFR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than MGNR's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

ENFR vs. MGNR - Dividend Comparison

ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.03%, more than MGNR's 1.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.03%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
MGNR American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF	1.07%	1.17%	0.79%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ENFR and MGNR in my portfolio?

ENFR and MGNR have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ENFR or MGNR?

MGNR has higher volatility (6.59%) compared to ENFR (6.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ENFR dropped -68.28% vs MGNR's -22.06%.

Which ETF is better, ENFR or MGNR?

On 1-year performance, MGNR leads with 74.12% vs 25.40% for ENFR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 6.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ENFR or MGNR?

Over the 1-year period, MGNR has performed better with a 74.12% return vs 25.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ENFR or MGNR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for MGNR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ENFR or MGNR?

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.03%, compared with 1.07% for MGNR.

What is the main difference between ENFR and MGNR?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and American Beacon. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for ENFR and 0.75% for MGNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MGNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 1.75), 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.