FCG vs. MFSM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FCG (First Trust Natural Gas ETF) and MFSM (MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index, while MFSM is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by MFS. FCG is passively managed, while MFSM is actively managed. Over the past year, FCG returned 12.39% vs 7.16% for MFSM. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. FCG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for MFSM.

Performance

FCG vs. MFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 17.24% return, which is significantly higher than MFSM's 2.07% return.

FCG

• 1D: 1.64%
• 1M: -9.95%
• YTD: 17.24%
• 6M: 18.20%
• 1Y: 12.39%
• 3Y*: 10.11%
• 5Y*: 14.16%
• 10Y*: 3.88%

MFSM

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.48%
• YTD: 2.07%
• 6M: 2.49%
• 1Y: 7.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCG vs. MFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	17.24%	-2.28%	-1.67%
MFSM MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF	2.07%	5.25%	-1.14%

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and MFSM is -0.29, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024	-0.19

Return for Risk

FCG vs. MFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 16
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 19

MFSM

MFSM Risk / Return Rank: 77
MFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
MFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
MFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 92
MFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
MFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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. MFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM). 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	MFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.46	2.75	-2.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.77	4.20	-3.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.59	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.70	2.72	-2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.05	9.99	-7.94

FCG vs. MFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCG Sharpe Ratio is 0.46, which is lower than the MFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCG and MFSM, 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. MFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than MFSM's maximum drawdown of -3.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and MFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCG	MFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.20%	-3.86%	-93.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.90%	-2.65%	-15.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.44%	—	—
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	-76.36%	-0.18%	-76.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.39%	-0.86%	-64.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.68%	0.72%	+5.96%

Volatility

FCG vs. MFSM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a higher volatility of 9.37% compared to MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM) at 0.71%. This indicates that FCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCG	MFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.37%	0.71%	+8.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.54%	2.01%	+18.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.35%	2.62%	+24.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.43%	3.41%	+30.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.32%	3.41%	+34.91%

FCG vs. MFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than MFSM's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCG vs. MFSM - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.34%, less than MFSM's 3.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	2.34%	2.86%	2.76%	3.25%	3.04%	1.73%	3.82%	2.87%	1.46%	1.56%	1.70%	4.79%
MFSM MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF	3.54%	3.53%	0.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCG and MFSM in my portfolio?

FCG and MFSM have a correlation of -0.29, 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 MFSM?

FCG has higher volatility (9.37%) compared to MFSM (0.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCG dropped -97.20% vs MFSM's -3.86%.

Which ETF is better, FCG or MFSM?

On 1-year performance, FCG leads with 12.39% vs 7.16% for MFSM. On fees, MFSM is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, MFSM has been the lower-risk option at 0.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCG or MFSM?

Over the 1-year period, FCG has performed better with a 12.39% return vs 7.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCG or MFSM?

MFSM is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FCG.

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

MFSM has the higher dividend yield at 3.54%, compared with 2.34% for FCG.

What is the main difference between FCG and MFSM?

FCG is categorized as Energy Equities, while MFSM is Municipal Bonds. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and MFS. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FCG and 0.34% for MFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 0.46), 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.