FCG vs. HAP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FCG (First Trust Natural Gas ETF) and HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - FCG tracks the Nasdaq FactSet Natural Gas Index while HAP tracks the MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FCG returned 4.37%/yr vs 11.28%/yr for HAP. Their 0.72 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for HAP.

Performance

FCG vs. HAP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 25.55% return, which is significantly higher than HAP's 17.54% return. Over the past 10 years, FCG has underperformed HAP with an annualized return of 4.37%, while HAP has yielded a comparatively higher 11.28% annualized return.

FCG

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: 10.02%
• 6M: 18.75%
• YTD: 25.55%
• 1Y: 30.04%
• 3Y*: 6.75%
• 5Y*: 19.99%
• 10Y*: 4.37%
• ALL TIME*: -4.48%

HAP

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 2.30%
• 6M: 5.27%
• YTD: 17.54%
• 1Y: 38.48%
• 3Y*: 15.28%
• 5Y*: 12.21%
• 10Y*: 11.28%
• ALL TIME*: 5.88%

*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)
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	$20.29M	$18.94M	$23.89M
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	$2.74M	$3.44M	$2.56M

FCG vs. HAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	25.55%	-2.28%	4.16%	2.55%	47.24%	98.49%	-23.20%	-15.76%	-34.81%	-11.38%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	17.54%	34.91%	-4.08%	2.46%	7.84%	25.04%	6.30%	18.60%	-10.68%	17.12%

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and HAP is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.68
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2008	0.72

Over the past year, the correlation between FCG and HAP has dropped to 0.36 - well below their long-term average of 0.72, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FCG vs. HAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCG	HAP
Energy	98.9%	28.7%
Technology	1.1%	1.0%
Basic Materials	-	38.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.3%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	3.8%
Industrials	-	11.6%
Real Estate	-	0.4%
Utilities	-	9.8%

Return for Risk

FCG vs. HAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 40
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 90
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 91
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

FCG vs. HAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FCG	HAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.11	2.47	-1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.55	3.20	-1.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.44	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	4.25	-2.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.84	11.97	-8.14

FCG vs. HAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.11, which is lower than the HAP Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCG and HAP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FCG vs. HAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than HAP's maximum drawdown of -50.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and HAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCG	HAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.20%	-50.99%	-46.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.67%	-9.09%	-10.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.44%	-16.92%	-12.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.33%	-25.66%	-7.67%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.04%	-44.07%	-40.97%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-74.69%	-5.15%	-69.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.45%	-12.03%	-53.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.85%	3.22%	+4.63%

Volatility

FCG vs. HAP - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a higher volatility of 8.92% compared to VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) at 3.85%. This indicates that FCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCG	HAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.92%	3.85%	+5.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.33%	12.57%	+8.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.35%	15.70%	+11.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.06%	18.21%	+14.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.24%	19.67%	+18.57%

FCG vs. HAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than HAP's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCG vs. HAP - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.19%, more than HAP's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	2.19%	2.86%	2.76%	3.25%	3.04%	1.73%	3.82%	2.87%	1.46%	1.56%	1.70%	4.79%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.93%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCG and HAP in my portfolio?

FCG and HAP have a correlation of 0.36, 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 HAP?

FCG has higher volatility (8.92%) compared to HAP (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCG dropped -97.20% vs HAP's -50.99%.

Which ETF is better, FCG or HAP?

On 10-year performance, HAP leads with 11.28% vs 4.37% for FCG. On fees, HAP is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, HAP has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCG or HAP?

Over the 10-year period, HAP has performed better with a 11.28% return vs 4.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCG or HAP?

HAP is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FCG.

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

FCG has the higher dividend yield at 2.19%, compared with 1.93% for HAP.

What is the main difference between FCG and HAP?

FCG tracks Nasdaq FactSet Natural Gas Index, while HAP tracks MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FCG and 0.42% for HAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.11), 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.