FANG vs. CL=F

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.) is a stock, while CL=F (Crude Oil WTI) is an asset. Over the past 10 years, FANG returned 11.38%/yr vs 6.75%/yr for CL=F. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

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

In the year-to-date period, FANG achieves a 36.19% return, which is significantly lower than CL=F's 62.64% return. Over the past 10 years, FANG has outperformed CL=F with an annualized return of 11.38%, while CL=F has yielded a comparatively lower 6.75% annualized return.

FANG

• 1D: 1.69%
• 1M: -1.99%
• YTD: 36.19%
• 6M: 31.25%
• 1Y: 50.90%
• 3Y*: 19.82%
• 5Y*: 23.66%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

CL=F

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -8.39%
• YTD: 62.64%
• 6M: 59.26%
• 1Y: 49.38%
• 3Y*: 9.14%
• 5Y*: 6.36%
• 10Y*: 6.75%

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

FANG vs. CL=F - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FANG Diamondback Energy, Inc.	36.19%	-5.64%	10.35%	19.66%	35.34%	127.51%	-46.00%	0.92%	-26.35%	24.93%
CL=F Crude Oil WTI	62.64%	-19.41%	-0.82%	-10.70%	7.44%	53.98%	-19.98%	32.92%	-24.35%	12.51%

Correlation

The correlation between FANG and CL=F is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2012	0.53

The correlation between FANG and CL=F has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FANG vs. CL=F — Risk / Return Rank

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

FANG

FANG Risk / Return Rank: 82
FANG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FANG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FANG Omega Ratio Rank: 75
FANG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FANG Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CL=F

CL=F Risk / Return Rank: 28
CL=F Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
CL=F Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CL=F Omega Ratio Rank: 24
CL=F Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
CL=F Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

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.

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	0.89	+0.77
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	1.38	+0.86
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.21	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	1.49	+2.84
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.64	3.14	+5.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FANG vs. CL=F - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FANG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is higher than the CL=F Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FANG and CL=F, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.66	0.89	+0.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	0.16	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.23	0.13	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.47	0.06	+0.41

Drawdowns

FANG vs. CL=F - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FANG drawdown since its inception was -88.72%, roughly equal to the maximum CL=F drawdown of -92.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FANG and CL=F.

Drawdown Indicators

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.72%	-92.04%	+3.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.53%	-27.07%	+14.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.10%	-39.46%	-2.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.10%	-53.86%	+11.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-88.72%	-84.82%	-3.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.76%	-35.72%	+30.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.40%	-40.81%	+21.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.28%	12.23%	-5.95%

Volatility

FANG vs. CL=F - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) is 11.04%, while Crude Oil WTI (CL=F) has a volatility of 17.06%. This indicates that FANG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CL=F based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FANG	CL=F	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.04%	17.06%	-6.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.59%	46.43%	-23.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.83%	49.20%	-18.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.84%	38.88%	-1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	49.02%	49.55%	-0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FANG and CL=F have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FANG or CL=F?

CL=F has higher volatility (17.06%) compared to FANG (11.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FANG dropped -88.72% vs CL=F's -92.04%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FANG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 0.89), 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.