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

Performance

ET vs. PAGP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Energy Transfer LP (ET) and Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP). 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 19.85% return, which is significantly lower than PAGP's 32.24% return. Over the past 10 years, ET has outperformed PAGP with an annualized return of 13.14%, while PAGP has yielded a comparatively lower 6.62% annualized return.


ET

1D
1.65%
1M
-5.12%
YTD
19.85%
6M
19.34%
1Y
11.35%
3Y*
24.04%
5Y*
20.15%
10Y*
13.14%

PAGP

1D
-0.04%
1M
3.70%
YTD
32.24%
6M
34.35%
1Y
38.87%
3Y*
29.64%
5Y*
22.53%
10Y*
6.62%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ET vs. PAGP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ET
Energy Transfer LP
19.85%-9.37%53.87%27.87%55.74%42.96%-44.92%5.88%-17.74%-4.66%
PAGP
Plains GP Holdings, L.P.
32.24%12.69%23.64%38.09%31.78%28.97%-51.17%0.30%-3.49%-32.11%

Correlation

The correlation between ET and PAGP is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

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

0.59

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

0.67

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2013

0.60

The correlation between ET and PAGP shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

ET:

$65.93B

PAGP:

$17.21B

EPS

ET:

$1.36

PAGP:

$2.23

PE Ratio

ET:

14.01

PAGP:

10.91

PS Ratio

ET:

0.76

PAGP:

0.18

PB Ratio

ET:

1.33

PAGP:

1.34

Total Revenue (TTM)

ET:

$89.38B

PAGP:

$45.26B

Gross Profit (TTM)

ET:

$20.48B

PAGP:

$2.07B

EBITDA (TTM)

ET:

$13.02B

PAGP:

$2.44B

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. PAGP — Risk / Return Rank

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

ET
ET Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
ET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ET Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
ET Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
ET Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
ET Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

PAGP
PAGP Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
PAGP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PAGP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
PAGP Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
PAGP Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
PAGP Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
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. PAGP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Transfer LP (ET) and Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP). 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.


ETPAGPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.13

1.36

-0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.22

2.70

-1.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.70

7.83

-5.14

ET vs. PAGP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ET Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is lower than the PAGP Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ET and PAGP, 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...

Drawdowns

ET vs. PAGP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ET drawdown since its inception was -87.81%, smaller than the maximum PAGP drawdown of -94.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ET and PAGP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ETPAGPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.81%

-94.21%

+6.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-14.44%

+5.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-21.02%

-3.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.82%

-23.89%

-1.93%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-72.82%

-88.04%

+15.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.47%

-35.01%

+28.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.72%

-57.68%

+31.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.65%

4.98%

-0.33%

Volatility

ET vs. PAGP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Energy Transfer LP (ET) is 5.08%, while Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) has a volatility of 6.57%. This indicates that ET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PAGP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ETPAGPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.08%

6.57%

-1.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.03%

13.32%

-1.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.13%

18.05%

-1.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.86%

27.38%

-2.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.99%

41.71%

-6.72%

Dividends

ET vs. PAGP - Dividend Comparison

ET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.00%, more than PAGP's 6.54% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
PAGP
Plains GP Holdings, L.P.
6.54%7.94%6.91%6.71%6.69%7.10%10.65%7.28%5.97%8.88%6.91%9.34%

Financials

ET vs. PAGP - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Transfer LP and Plains GP Holdings, L.P.. 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


10.00B15.00B20.00B25.00B20222023202420252026
27.77B
12.47B
(ET) Total Revenue
(PAGP) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

ET vs. PAGP - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Energy Transfer LP and Plains GP Holdings, L.P. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%100.0%20222023202420252026
23.9%
0
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%.

PAGP - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Plains GP Holdings, L.P. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 12.47B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.

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%.

PAGP - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Plains GP Holdings, L.P. reported an operating income of 405.00M and revenue of 12.47B, resulting in an operating margin of 3.3%.

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%.

PAGP - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Plains GP Holdings, L.P. reported a net income of 551.00M and revenue of 12.47B, resulting in a net margin of 4.4%.


Frequently Asked Questions


ET and PAGP have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PAGP has higher volatility (6.57%) compared to ET (5.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ET dropped -87.81% vs PAGP's -94.21%.

PAGP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ET and PAGP

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