ET vs. C
ET (Energy Transfer LP) and C (Citigroup Inc.) are both stocks. ET operates in Oil & Gas Midstream (Energy), while C operates in Banks - Diversified (Financial Services). Over the past 10 years, ET returned 13.08%/yr vs 15.14%/yr for C. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
ET vs. C - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ET achieves a 21.54% return, which is significantly higher than C's 15.36% return. Over the past 10 years, ET has underperformed C with an annualized return of 13.08%, while C has yielded a comparatively higher 15.14% 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%
C
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- 6.16%
- YTD
- 15.36%
- 6M
- 23.58%
- 1Y
- 74.17%
- 3Y*
- 44.93%
- 5Y*
- 15.19%
- 10Y*
- 15.14%
ET vs. C - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET Energy Transfer LP | 21.54% | -9.37% | 53.87% | 27.87% | 55.74% | 42.96% | -44.92% | 5.88% | -17.74% | -4.66% |
C Citigroup Inc. | 15.36% | 70.38% | 41.93% | 18.98% | -22.09% | 0.93% | -19.70% | 57.82% | -28.49% | 27.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between ET and C 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 | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2006 | 0.36 |
Over the past year, the correlation between ET and C has dropped to 0.04 - well below their long-term average of 0.36, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Fundamentals
ET:
$66.87B
C:
$236.71B
ET:
$1.36
C:
$8.65
ET:
14.21
C:
15.41
ET:
0.77
C:
1.44
ET:
1.34
C:
1.24
ET:
$89.38B
C:
$171.19B
ET:
$20.48B
C:
$77.85B
ET:
$13.02B
C:
$24.12B
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. C — Risk / Return Rank
ET
C
ET vs. C - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Transfer LP (ET) and Citigroup Inc. (C). 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.
| ET | C | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.42 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.62 | 5.05 | -3.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.55 | 14.54 | -10.99 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ET | C | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.01 | 2.65 | -1.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 | 0.52 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.38 | 0.46 | -0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.36 | 0.15 | +0.20 |
Drawdowns
ET vs. C - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ET drawdown since its inception was -87.81%, smaller than the maximum C drawdown of -98.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ET and C.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ET | C | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.81% | -98.00% | +10.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.02% | -14.76% | +4.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -31.31% | +6.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.82% | -45.78% | +19.96% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.82% | -56.51% | -16.31% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.15% | -64.43% | +59.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.74% | -43.51% | +17.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.57% | 5.12% | -0.55% |
Volatility
ET vs. C - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Energy Transfer LP (ET) is 5.27%, while Citigroup Inc. (C) has a volatility of 8.43%. This indicates that ET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than C based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ET | C | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.27% | 8.43% | -3.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.84% | 22.84% | -11.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.12% | 28.19% | -12.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.87% | 29.18% | -4.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.02% | 33.23% | +1.79% |
Dividends
ET vs. C - Dividend Comparison
ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.90%, more than C's 1.80% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C Citigroup Inc. | 1.80% | 1.99% | 3.10% | 4.04% | 4.51% | 3.38% | 3.31% | 2.40% | 2.96% | 1.29% | 0.71% | 0.31% |
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. C - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Transfer LP and Citigroup Inc.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
ET vs. C - Profitability Comparison
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%.
C - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Citigroup Inc. reported a gross profit of 21.76B and revenue of 44.14B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 49.3%.
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%.
C - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Citigroup Inc. reported an operating income of 7.52B and revenue of 44.14B, resulting in an operating margin of 17.0%.
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%.
C - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Citigroup Inc. reported a net income of 5.79B and revenue of 44.14B, resulting in a net margin of 13.1%.
Frequently Asked Questions
ET and C 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.
C has higher volatility (8.43%) compared to ET (5.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ET dropped -87.81% vs C's -98.00%.
C currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 1.01), 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 ET and C
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