FCG vs. EIPX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FCG (First Trust Natural Gas ETF) and EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) are both Energy Equities funds from First Trust. FCG is passively managed, while EIPX is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FCG returned 12.75%/yr vs 21.12%/yr for EIPX. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FCG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for EIPX.

Performance

FCG vs. EIPX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 27.71% return, which is significantly higher than EIPX's 21.96% 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%

EIPX

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 21.96%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 30.04%
• 3Y*: 21.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCG vs. EIPX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	27.71%	-2.28%	4.16%	2.55%	-8.95%
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	21.96%	11.44%	19.11%	10.74%	0.56%

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and EIPX is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2022	0.84

The correlation between FCG and EIPX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

FCG vs. EIPX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCG	EIPX
Energy	99.2%	69.5%
Technology	0.8%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	4.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	26.1%

Return for Risk

FCG vs. EIPX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 36
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 36

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 86
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 77
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. EIPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). 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.

	FCG	EIPX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.71	-1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	3.82	-2.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.46	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.54	7.32	-4.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.56	20.31	-14.75
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCG vs. EIPX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the EIPX Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCG and EIPX, 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

	FCG	EIPX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	2.71	-1.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.12	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.11	1.20	-1.31

Drawdowns

FCG vs. EIPX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than EIPX's maximum drawdown of -15.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and EIPX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCG	EIPX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.20%	-15.43%	-81.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.07%	-4.12%	-8.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.44%	-15.43%	-14.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.33%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-74.25%	-2.58%	-71.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.38%	-2.27%	-63.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.95%	1.49%	+4.46%

Volatility

FCG vs. EIPX - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a higher volatility of 9.60% compared to FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) at 4.01%. This indicates that FCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EIPX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCG	EIPX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	4.01%	+5.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.15%	8.50%	+11.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.75%	11.17%	+15.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.46%	15.06%	+18.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.30%	15.06%	+23.24%

FCG vs. EIPX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than EIPX's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCG vs. EIPX - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, less than EIPX's 2.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.68%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both FCG and EIPX in my portfolio?

FCG and EIPX have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCG or EIPX?

FCG has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to EIPX (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCG dropped -97.20% vs EIPX's -15.43%.

Which ETF is better, FCG or EIPX?

On 3-year performance, EIPX leads with 21.12% vs 12.75% for FCG. On fees, FCG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, EIPX has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCG or EIPX?

Over the 3-year period, EIPX has performed better with a 21.12% return vs 12.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCG or EIPX?

FCG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCG or EIPX?

EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 2.15% for FCG.

What is the main difference between FCG and EIPX?

Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FCG and 0.95% for EIPX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EIPX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 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.