PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ET vs. BTG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

ET vs. BTG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Energy Transfer LP (ET) and B2Gold Corp. (BTG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ET achieves a 21.54% return, which is significantly higher than BTG's -7.85% return. Over the past 10 years, ET has outperformed BTG with an annualized return of 13.08%, while BTG has yielded a comparatively lower 9.81% annualized return.


ET

1D
-0.26%
1M
-0.00%
YTD
21.54%
6M
19.30%
1Y
16.21%
3Y*
24.40%
5Y*
21.43%
10Y*
13.08%

BTG

1D
-0.96%
1M
-21.89%
YTD
-7.85%
6M
-7.23%
1Y
14.91%
3Y*
6.93%
5Y*
0.85%
10Y*
9.81%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ET vs. BTG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ET
Energy Transfer LP
21.54%-9.37%53.87%27.87%55.74%42.96%-44.92%5.88%-17.74%-4.66%
BTG
B2Gold Corp.
-7.85%88.95%-18.07%-7.22%-5.13%-26.97%42.35%37.72%-5.81%30.80%

Correlation

The correlation between ET and BTG is 0.04, 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

0.04

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

0.15

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

0.22

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

0.11

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2008

0.14

The correlation between ET and BTG shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (1 year) to 0.22 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

ET:

$66.87B

BTG:

$6.22B

EPS

ET:

$1.36

BTG:

$0.36

PE Ratio

ET:

14.21

BTG:

11.62

PS Ratio

ET:

0.77

BTG:

1.71

PB Ratio

ET:

1.34

BTG:

1.69

Total Revenue (TTM)

ET:

$89.38B

BTG:

$3.67B

Gross Profit (TTM)

ET:

$20.48B

BTG:

$1.89B

EBITDA (TTM)

ET:

$13.02B

BTG:

$1.96B

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

ET vs. BTG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ET
ET Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
ET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ET Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
ET Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
ET Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
ET Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

BTG
BTG Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
BTG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BTG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
BTG Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
BTG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
BTG Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
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.

ET vs. BTG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Transfer LP (ET) and B2Gold Corp. (BTG). 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.


ETBTGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.74

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.85

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.09

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.62

0.41

+1.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.55

0.82

+2.73

ET vs. BTG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ET Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is higher than the BTG Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ET and BTG, 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


ETBTGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.01

0.27

+0.74

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.87

0.02

+0.85

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.38

0.20

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.13

+0.23

Drawdowns

ET vs. BTG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ET drawdown since its inception was -87.81%, roughly equal to the maximum BTG drawdown of -85.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ET and BTG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ETBTGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.81%

-85.97%

-1.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.02%

-36.63%

+26.61%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-36.72%

+12.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.82%

-48.92%

+23.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-72.82%

-63.35%

-9.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.15%

-33.08%

+27.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.74%

-38.36%

+12.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.57%

18.20%

-13.63%

Volatility

ET vs. BTG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Energy Transfer LP (ET) is 5.27%, while B2Gold Corp. (BTG) has a volatility of 15.99%. This indicates that ET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BTG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ETBTGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.27%

15.99%

-10.72%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.84%

44.03%

-32.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.12%

55.17%

-39.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.87%

44.73%

-19.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

35.02%

48.23%

-13.21%

Dividends

ET vs. BTG - Dividend Comparison

ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.90%, more than BTG's 1.93% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BTG
B2Gold Corp.
1.93%1.77%6.56%5.06%4.48%4.07%1.96%0.25%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ET
Energy Transfer LP
6.90%7.97%6.51%8.95%7.33%7.41%17.27%9.51%9.24%6.66%5.90%7.42%

Financials

ET vs. BTG - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Transfer LP and B2Gold Corp.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.005.00B10.00B15.00B20.00B25.00B20222023202420252026
27.77B
1.14B
(ET) Total Revenue
(BTG) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

ET vs. BTG - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Energy Transfer LP and B2Gold Corp. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%20222023202420252026
23.9%
52.6%
Portfolio components
ET - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a gross profit of 6.62B and revenue of 27.77B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 23.9%.

BTG - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, B2Gold Corp. reported a gross profit of 601.32M and revenue of 1.14B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 52.6%.

ET - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported an operating income of 2.98B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in an operating margin of 10.7%.

BTG - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, B2Gold Corp. reported an operating income of 572.52M and revenue of 1.14B, resulting in an operating margin of 50.1%.

ET - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a net income of 1.25B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in a net margin of 4.5%.

BTG - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, B2Gold Corp. reported a net income of 197.17M and revenue of 1.14B, resulting in a net margin of 17.3%.


Frequently Asked Questions


ET and BTG have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BTG has higher volatility (15.99%) compared to ET (5.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ET dropped -87.81% vs BTG's -85.97%.

ET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 0.27), 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 ET and BTG

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