FANG vs. CL=F

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.) is a stock, while CL=F (Crude Oil WTI) is an asset. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.

Performance

FANG vs. CL=F - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) and Crude Oil WTI (CL=F). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FANG

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: 17.97%
• 6M: 25.21%
• YTD: 36.56%
• 1Y: 42.46%
• 3Y*: 15.28%
• 5Y*: 26.60%
• 10Y*: 11.95%
• ALL TIME*: 21.62%

CL=F

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc.	$369.57M	$368.14M	$455.33M

FANG vs. CL=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc.	36.56%	-5.64%	10.35%	19.66%	13.39%
CL=F Crude Oil WTI	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	18.11%

Correlation

The correlation between FANG and CL=F is 0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2022	0.08

Return for Risk

FANG vs. CL=F — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FANG

FANG Risk / Return Rank: 79
FANG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FANG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FANG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
FANG Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FANG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CL=F

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FANG vs. CL=F - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) and Crude Oil WTI (CL=F). 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.

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.82	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.11	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.23	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-88.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.50%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.29%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.47%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.65%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.08%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.58%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.37%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.07%	—	—

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FANG and CL=F in my portfolio?

FANG and CL=F have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.