PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FCG vs. CRAK
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FCG vs. CRAK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 27.71% return, which is significantly lower than CRAK's 33.23% return. Over the past 10 years, FCG has underperformed CRAK with an annualized return of 4.65%, while CRAK has yielded a comparatively higher 13.28% annualized return.


FCG

1D
1.02%
1M
-6.03%
YTD
27.71%
6M
20.12%
1Y
32.99%
3Y*
12.75%
5Y*
16.52%
10Y*
4.65%

CRAK

1D
0.56%
1M
-1.83%
YTD
33.23%
6M
27.96%
1Y
67.58%
3Y*
22.78%
5Y*
13.54%
10Y*
13.28%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FCG vs. CRAK - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FCG
First Trust Natural Gas ETF
27.71%-2.28%4.16%2.55%47.24%98.49%-23.20%-15.76%-34.81%-11.38%
CRAK
VanEck Oil Refiners ETF
33.23%39.11%-15.05%13.73%19.10%10.90%-11.22%9.15%-10.46%49.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and CRAK is 0.51, 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

0.51

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

0.58

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

0.67

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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2015

0.60

The correlation between FCG and CRAK shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCG vs. CRAK - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FCG
CRAK

Energy

99.2%
98.9%

Technology

0.8%

-

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

4.0%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Energy

FCG
99.2%
CRAK
98.9%

Technology

FCG
0.8%
CRAK

-

Basic Materials

FCG

-

CRAK
1.1%

Communication Services

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Consumer Cyclical

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Consumer Defensive

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Financial Services

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Healthcare

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Industrials

FCG

-

CRAK
4.0%

Real Estate

FCG

-

CRAK

-

Utilities

FCG

-

CRAK

-

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

FCG vs. CRAK — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG
FCG Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank

CRAK
CRAK Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
CRAK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CRAK Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
CRAK Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
CRAK Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CRAK Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
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.

FCG vs. CRAK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK). 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.


FCGCRAKDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.07

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.62

-0.41

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.54

7.93

-5.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.56

22.48

-16.92

FCG vs. CRAK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the CRAK Sharpe Ratio of 3.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCG and CRAK, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FCGCRAKDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.24

3.70

-2.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

0.66

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.12

0.60

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.11

0.54

-0.65

Drawdowns

FCG vs. CRAK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than CRAK's maximum drawdown of -58.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and CRAK.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FCGCRAKDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-97.20%

-58.80%

-38.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.07%

-8.57%

-4.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.44%

-35.61%

+6.17%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.33%

-35.61%

+2.28%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-85.04%

-58.80%

-26.24%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-74.25%

-3.81%

-70.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-65.38%

-12.50%

-52.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.95%

3.02%

+2.93%

Volatility

FCG vs. CRAK - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a higher volatility of 9.60% compared to VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK) at 6.74%. This indicates that FCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CRAK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FCGCRAKDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.60%

6.74%

+2.86%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.15%

14.27%

+5.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.75%

18.35%

+8.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.46%

20.61%

+12.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

38.30%

22.16%

+16.14%

FCG vs. CRAK - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CRAK's 0.62% expense ratio.


Dividends

FCG vs. CRAK - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, more than CRAK's 1.51% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CRAK
VanEck Oil Refiners ETF
1.51%2.02%5.60%3.65%3.08%2.40%2.64%1.49%2.42%1.66%3.42%0.47%
FCG
First Trust Natural Gas ETF
2.15%2.86%2.76%3.25%3.04%1.73%3.82%2.87%1.46%1.56%1.70%4.79%

Frequently Asked Questions


FCG and CRAK have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FCG has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to CRAK (6.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCG dropped -97.20% vs CRAK's -58.80%.

On 10-year performance, CRAK leads with 13.28% vs 4.65% for FCG. On fees, FCG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CRAK has been the lower-risk option at 6.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CRAK has performed better with a 13.28% return vs 4.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FCG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.62% for CRAK.

FCG has the higher dividend yield at 2.15%, compared with 1.51% for CRAK.

FCG tracks ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index, while CRAK tracks MVIS Global Oil Refiners Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FCG and 0.62% for CRAK.

CRAK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.70 vs 1.24), 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 FCG and CRAK

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