ET vs. HWM
ET (Energy Transfer LP) and HWM (Howmet Aerospace Inc.) are both stocks. ET operates in Oil & Gas Midstream (Energy), while HWM operates in Aerospace & Defense (Industrials). Over the past 10 years, ET returned 13.14%/yr vs 33.28%/yr for HWM. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
ET vs. HWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ET achieves a 19.85% return, which is significantly lower than HWM's 29.23% return. Over the past 10 years, ET has underperformed HWM with an annualized return of 13.14%, while HWM has yielded a comparatively higher 33.28% annualized return.
ET
- 1D
- 1.65%
- 1M
- -6.34%
- YTD
- 19.85%
- 6M
- 19.34%
- 1Y
- 12.14%
- 3Y*
- 24.04%
- 5Y*
- 20.15%
- 10Y*
- 13.14%
HWM
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -3.09%
- YTD
- 29.23%
- 6M
- 33.60%
- 1Y
- 54.66%
- 3Y*
- 79.69%
- 5Y*
- 50.00%
- 10Y*
- 33.28%
ET vs. HWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET Energy Transfer LP | 19.85% | -9.37% | 53.87% | 27.87% | 55.74% | 42.96% | -44.92% | 5.88% | -17.74% | -4.66% |
HWM Howmet Aerospace Inc. | 29.23% | 87.95% | 102.71% | 37.84% | 24.16% | 11.67% | 21.03% | 83.54% | -37.43% | 48.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between ET and HWM 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 | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.37 |
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 HWM has dropped to 0.04 - well below their long-term average of 0.36, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Fundamentals
ET:
$65.93B
HWM:
$106.66B
ET:
$1.36
HWM:
$4.31
ET:
14.01
HWM:
61.42
ET:
0.76
HWM:
12.42
ET:
1.33
HWM:
19.32
ET:
$89.38B
HWM:
$8.62B
ET:
$20.48B
HWM:
$2.81B
ET:
$13.02B
HWM:
$2.66B
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. HWM — Risk / Return Rank
ET
HWM
ET vs. HWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Transfer LP (ET) and Howmet Aerospace Inc. (HWM). 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 | HWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 1.30 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.22 | 3.46 | -2.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.70 | 9.77 | -7.07 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ET vs. HWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ET drawdown since its inception was -87.81%, roughly equal to the maximum HWM drawdown of -88.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ET and HWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ET | HWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.81% | -88.30% | +0.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.38% | -15.89% | +6.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -19.41% | -5.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.82% | -21.61% | -4.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -72.82% | -64.81% | -8.01% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.47% | -3.26% | -3.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.72% | -31.00% | +5.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.65% | 5.61% | -0.96% |
Volatility
ET vs. HWM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Energy Transfer LP (ET) is 5.08%, while Howmet Aerospace Inc. (HWM) has a volatility of 11.03%. This indicates that ET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ET | HWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.08% | 11.03% | -5.95% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.03% | 25.03% | -13.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.13% | 31.46% | -15.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.86% | 32.20% | -7.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.99% | 39.82% | -4.83% |
Dividends
ET vs. HWM - Dividend Comparison
ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.00%, more than HWM's 0.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET Energy Transfer LP | 7.00% | 7.97% | 6.51% | 8.95% | 7.33% | 7.41% | 17.27% | 9.51% | 9.24% | 6.66% | 5.90% | 7.42% |
HWM Howmet Aerospace Inc. | 0.18% | 0.21% | 0.24% | 0.31% | 0.25% | 0.13% | 0.05% | 0.39% | 1.42% | 0.88% | 40.49% | 1.22% |
Financials
ET vs. HWM - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Transfer LP and Howmet Aerospace 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. HWM - 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%.
HWM - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Howmet Aerospace Inc. reported a gross profit of 854.00M and revenue of 2.31B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 36.9%.
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%.
HWM - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Howmet Aerospace Inc. reported an operating income of 734.00M and revenue of 2.31B, resulting in an operating margin of 31.7%.
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%.
HWM - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Howmet Aerospace Inc. reported a net income of 580.00M and revenue of 2.31B, resulting in a net margin of 25.1%.
Frequently Asked Questions
ET and HWM 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.
HWM has higher volatility (11.03%) compared to ET (5.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ET dropped -87.81% vs HWM's -88.30%.
HWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 0.71), 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 HWM
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