ENFR vs. USNG

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) and USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. ENFR is passively managed, while USNG is actively managed. Over the past year, ENFR returned 30.52% vs 40.76% for USNG. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ENFR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for USNG.

Performance

ENFR vs. USNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) 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, ENFR achieves a 29.25% return, which is significantly lower than USNG's 32.49% return.

ENFR

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: 2.60%
• 6M: 28.45%
• YTD: 29.25%
• 1Y: 30.52%
• 3Y*: 28.29%
• 5Y*: 21.98%
• 10Y*: 11.80%

USNG

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 0.81%
• 6M: 26.63%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 1Y: 40.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ENFR vs. USNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	29.25%	2.35%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	32.49%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between ENFR and USNG is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	0.64

The correlation between ENFR and USNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ENFR vs. USNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 75
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 74
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 62

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 90
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 85
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. USNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) 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.

	ENFR	USNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	2.43	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	3.31	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.40	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.55	6.01	-2.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.73	17.20	-8.47

ENFR vs. USNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ENFR Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the USNG Sharpe Ratio of 2.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ENFR 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

ENFR vs. USNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ENFR drawdown since its inception was -68.28%, which is greater than USNG's maximum drawdown of -6.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENFR and USNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ENFR	USNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.28%	-6.82%	-61.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.64%	-6.82%	-1.82%
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	-1.41%	-3.32%	+1.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.88%	-1.61%	-14.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	2.39%	+1.12%

Volatility

ENFR vs. USNG - Volatility Comparison

Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a higher volatility of 5.62% compared to Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) at 5.32%. This indicates that ENFR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than USNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ENFR	USNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.62%	5.32%	+0.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	12.87%	-0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.18%	16.84%	-1.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.27%	16.71%	+2.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.65%	16.71%	+7.94%

ENFR vs. USNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ENFR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than USNG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ENFR vs. USNG - Dividend Comparison

ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.88%, more than USNG's 1.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	3.88%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.45%	1.10%	0.00%	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 USNG in my portfolio?

ENFR and USNG have a correlation of 0.62, 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 USNG?

ENFR has higher volatility (5.62%) compared to USNG (5.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ENFR dropped -68.28% vs USNG's -6.82%.

Which ETF is better, ENFR or USNG?

On 1-year performance, USNG leads with 40.76% vs 30.52% for ENFR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, USNG has been the lower-risk option at 5.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ENFR or USNG?

Over the 1-year period, USNG has performed better with a 40.76% return vs 30.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ENFR or USNG?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for USNG.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 3.88%, compared with 1.45% for USNG.

What is the main difference between ENFR and USNG?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for ENFR and 0.59% for USNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USNG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.02), 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.