FCG vs. MLPI

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI).

FCG and MLPI are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FCG is a passively managed fund by First Trust that tracks the performance of the ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index. It was launched on May 8, 2007. MLPI is an actively managed fund by Neos. It was launched on Dec 17, 2025.

Performance

FCG vs. MLPI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FCG vs. MLPI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	35.99%	2.32%
MLPI Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	17.27%	0.56%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 35.99% return, which is significantly higher than MLPI's 17.27% return.

FCG

• 1D: -1.95%
• 1M: 13.98%
• YTD: 35.99%
• 6M: 36.46%
• 1Y: 30.79%
• 3Y*: 15.23%
• 5Y*: 22.03%
• 10Y*: 7.31%

MLPI

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 3.16%
• YTD: 17.27%
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCG vs. MLPI - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPI's 0.68% expense ratio.

MLPI

Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF

FCG

First Trust Natural Gas ETF

Return for Risk

FCG vs. MLPI — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 52
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. MLPI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). 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	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.95	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.36	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.37	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.92	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FCG	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.10	7.48	-7.59

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and MLPI is 0.60, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

FCG vs. MLPI - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, less than MLPI's 3.49% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	2.02%	2.86%	2.76%	3.25%	3.04%	1.73%	3.82%	2.87%	1.46%	1.56%	1.70%	4.79%
MLPI Neos MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	3.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

FCG vs. MLPI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than MLPI's maximum drawdown of -2.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and MLPI.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCG	MLPI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.20%	-2.78%	-94.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.23%	—	—
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	-72.58%	-1.19%	-71.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.30%	-0.60%	-64.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.13%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FCG	MLPI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.09%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.28%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.42%	11.12%	+21.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.88%	11.12%	+22.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.28%	11.12%	+27.16%