ENFR vs. UMI
ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) and UMI (USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. ENFR is passively managed, while UMI is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ENFR returned 21.61%/yr vs 22.24%/yr for UMI. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ENFR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for UMI.
Performance
ENFR vs. UMI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ENFR achieves a 28.57% return, which is significantly higher than UMI's 26.85% return.
ENFR
- 1D
- 1.98%
- 1M
- 2.06%
- 6M
- 29.84%
- YTD
- 28.57%
- 1Y
- 31.23%
- 3Y*
- 28.06%
- 5Y*
- 21.61%
- 10Y*
- 11.74%
UMI
- 1D
- 1.81%
- 1M
- 2.30%
- 6M
- 27.68%
- YTD
- 26.85%
- 1Y
- 30.77%
- 3Y*
- 27.34%
- 5Y*
- 22.24%
- 10Y*
- —
ENFR vs. UMI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 28.57% | 5.88% | 42.17% | 15.63% | 17.48% | 39.97% | -24.14% | 21.60% | -18.67% | 6.39% |
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 26.85% | 5.11% | 42.97% | 14.60% | 20.78% | 20.97% | -8.25% | 21.06% | -10.64% | 2.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between ENFR and UMI is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2017 | 0.80 |
The correlation between ENFR and UMI shifts across timeframes, from 0.80 (all time) to 0.98 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
ENFR vs. UMI — Risk / Return Rank
ENFR
UMI
ENFR vs. UMI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) and USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI). 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.
| ENFR | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.36 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.63 | 4.12 | -0.49 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.93 | 10.38 | -1.45 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ENFR vs. UMI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ENFR drawdown since its inception was -68.28%, which is greater than UMI's maximum drawdown of -48.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENFR and UMI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ENFR | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -68.28% | -48.08% | -20.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.64% | -7.50% | -1.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.58% | -17.08% | +1.50% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.29% | -20.05% | -0.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -62.64% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.93% | -1.39% | -0.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.89% | -6.57% | -9.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.51% | 2.97% | +0.54% |
Volatility
ENFR vs. UMI - Volatility Comparison
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a higher volatility of 5.68% compared to USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF (UMI) at 5.40%. This indicates that ENFR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UMI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ENFR | UMI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.68% | 5.40% | +0.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.06% | 11.38% | +0.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.20% | 14.61% | +0.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.28% | 19.47% | -0.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.65% | 23.14% | +1.51% |
ENFR vs. UMI - Expense Ratio Comparison
ENFR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than UMI's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
ENFR vs. UMI - Dividend Comparison
ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.90%, less than UMI's 5.79% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 3.90% | 4.77% | 4.41% | 5.48% | 5.23% | 7.86% | 7.57% | 5.81% | 3.98% | 2.98% | 3.31% | 3.34% |
UMI USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund ETF | 5.79% | 6.23% | 4.39% | 4.67% | 4.36% | 3.00% | 2.18% | 2.47% | 2.48% | 0.15% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, ENFR and UMI move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
ENFR has higher volatility (5.68%) compared to UMI (5.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ENFR dropped -68.28% vs UMI's -48.08%.
On 5-year performance, UMI leads with 22.24% vs 21.61% for ENFR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, UMI has been the lower-risk option at 5.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, UMI has performed better with a 22.24% return vs 21.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for UMI.
UMI has the higher dividend yield at 5.79%, compared with 3.90% for ENFR.
They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Wainwright, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for ENFR and 0.85% for UMI.
UMI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.07), 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.
Find the right allocation for ENFR and UMI
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