ET vs. CCJ
ET (Energy Transfer LP) and CCJ (Cameco Corporation) are both stocks. Both are in the Energy sector — ET in Oil & Gas Midstream, CCJ in Uranium. Over the past 10 years, ET returned 13.39%/yr vs 26.52%/yr for CCJ. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
ET vs. CCJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ET achieves a 17.84% return, which is significantly higher than CCJ's 16.40% return. Over the past 10 years, ET has underperformed CCJ with an annualized return of 13.39%, while CCJ has yielded a comparatively higher 26.52% annualized return.
ET
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -6.99%
- YTD
- 17.84%
- 6M
- 18.55%
- 1Y
- 12.98%
- 3Y*
- 22.86%
- 5Y*
- 21.38%
- 10Y*
- 13.39%
CCJ
- 1D
- 0.78%
- 1M
- 2.37%
- YTD
- 16.40%
- 6M
- 18.34%
- 1Y
- 53.15%
- 3Y*
- 49.96%
- 5Y*
- 41.78%
- 10Y*
- 26.52%
ET vs. CCJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET Energy Transfer LP | 17.84% | -9.37% | 53.87% | 27.87% | 55.74% | 42.96% | -44.92% | 5.88% | -17.74% | -4.66% |
CCJ Cameco Corporation | 16.40% | 78.38% | 19.47% | 90.49% | 4.35% | 63.19% | 51.47% | -21.08% | 23.58% | -8.20% |
Correlation
The correlation between ET and CCJ is 0.07, 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 | 0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2006 | 0.33 |
Over the past year, the correlation between ET and CCJ has dropped to 0.07 - well below their long-term average of 0.33, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Fundamentals
ET:
$64.83B
CCJ:
$46.39B
ET:
$1.36
CCJ:
CA$1.49
ET:
13.78
CCJ:
100.78
ET:
0.74
CCJ:
18.53
ET:
1.30
CCJ:
9.26
ET:
$89.38B
CCJ:
CA$3.54B
ET:
$20.48B
CCJ:
CA$1.04B
ET:
$13.02B
CCJ:
CA$996.66M
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. CCJ — Risk / Return Rank
ET
CCJ
ET vs. CCJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Transfer LP (ET) and Cameco Corporation (CCJ). 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.
| ET | CCJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.38 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.20 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.48 | 1.83 | -0.35 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.30 | 4.35 | -1.04 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ET vs. CCJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ET drawdown since its inception was -87.81%, roughly equal to the maximum CCJ drawdown of -87.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ET and CCJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ET | CCJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.81% | -87.53% | -0.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.79% | -29.13% | +20.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -40.01% | +15.45% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.56% | -40.01% | +15.45% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.82% | -57.22% | -15.60% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.04% | -20.58% | +12.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.71% | -46.06% | +20.35% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.94% | 12.26% | -8.32% |
Volatility
ET vs. CCJ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Energy Transfer LP (ET) is 4.61%, while Cameco Corporation (CCJ) has a volatility of 18.28%. This indicates that ET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CCJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ET | CCJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.61% | 18.28% | -13.67% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.03% | 39.89% | -27.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.05% | 55.39% | -39.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.71% | 49.79% | -25.08% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.98% | 46.79% | -11.81% |
Dividends
ET vs. CCJ - Dividend Comparison
ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.12%, more than CCJ's 0.16% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCJ Cameco Corporation | 0.16% | 0.19% | 0.22% | 0.20% | 0.39% | 0.29% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.53% | 4.33% | 3.82% | 3.24% |
ET Energy Transfer LP | 7.12% | 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. CCJ - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Transfer LP and Cameco Corporation. 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. CCJ - 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%.
CCJ - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cameco Corporation reported a gross profit of 291.00M and revenue of 847.55M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 34.3%.
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%.
CCJ - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cameco Corporation reported an operating income of 154.28M and revenue of 847.55M, resulting in an operating margin of 18.2%.
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%.
CCJ - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cameco Corporation reported a net income of 131.09M and revenue of 847.55M, resulting in a net margin of 15.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
ET and CCJ have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CCJ has higher volatility (18.28%) compared to ET (4.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ET dropped -87.81% vs CCJ's -87.53%.
CCJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.96 vs 0.81), 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 CCJ
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