PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLRT vs. EMLP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLRT vs. EMLP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) and First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLRT achieves a 1.83% return, which is significantly lower than EMLP's 15.76% return. Over the past 10 years, FLRT has underperformed EMLP with an annualized return of 4.82%, while EMLP has yielded a comparatively higher 10.37% annualized return.


FLRT

1D
0.09%
1M
0.27%
YTD
1.83%
6M
2.22%
1Y
5.74%
3Y*
8.69%
5Y*
5.97%
10Y*
4.82%

EMLP

1D
0.79%
1M
-1.31%
YTD
15.76%
6M
15.73%
1Y
19.70%
3Y*
21.55%
5Y*
15.13%
10Y*
10.37%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLRT vs. EMLP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLRT
Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF
1.83%6.24%9.18%14.59%-2.72%3.18%2.78%9.44%-1.14%1.72%
EMLP
First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund
15.76%9.67%33.39%8.05%10.39%23.20%-13.36%23.40%-8.70%1.07%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRT and EMLP is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.02

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

0.17

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

0.21

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

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2015

0.14

The correlation between FLRT and EMLP shifts across timeframes, from 0.01 (1 year) to 0.21 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLRT vs. EMLP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FLRT
EMLP

Financial Services

99.2%

-

Communication Services

0.8%

-

Basic Materials

-

0.6%

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

48.1%

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

3.9%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

47.4%

Financial Services

FLRT
99.2%
EMLP

-

Communication Services

FLRT
0.8%
EMLP

-

Basic Materials

FLRT

-

EMLP
0.6%

Consumer Cyclical

FLRT

-

EMLP

-

Consumer Defensive

FLRT

-

EMLP

-

Energy

FLRT

-

EMLP
48.1%

Healthcare

FLRT

-

EMLP

-

Industrials

FLRT

-

EMLP
3.9%

Real Estate

FLRT

-

EMLP

-

Technology

FLRT

-

EMLP

-

Utilities

FLRT

-

EMLP
47.4%

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

FLRT vs. EMLP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLRT
FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

EMLP
EMLP Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
EMLP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLP Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLP Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLP Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLP Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

FLRT vs. EMLP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) and First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP). 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.


FLRTEMLPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.87

1.34

+0.53

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.29

4.03

-0.74

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.05

12.36

-0.31

FLRT vs. EMLP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLRT Sharpe Ratio is 3.67, which is higher than the EMLP Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLRT and EMLP, 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...

Drawdowns

FLRT vs. EMLP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRT drawdown since its inception was -20.96%, smaller than the maximum EMLP drawdown of -43.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRT and EMLP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLRTEMLPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.96%

-43.61%

+22.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.78%

-4.94%

+3.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-2.87%

-11.47%

+8.60%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-7.60%

-14.59%

+6.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.96%

-43.61%

+22.65%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-2.66%

+2.51%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.41%

-5.75%

+4.34%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.48%

1.61%

-1.13%

Volatility

FLRT vs. EMLP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) is 0.45%, while First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP) has a volatility of 3.79%. This indicates that FLRT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMLP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLRTEMLPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.45%

3.79%

-3.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.22%

7.86%

-6.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.60%

9.87%

-8.27%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.30%

14.53%

-12.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.14%

17.69%

-11.55%

FLRT vs. EMLP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLRT has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than EMLP's 0.96% expense ratio.


Dividends

FLRT vs. EMLP - Dividend Comparison

FLRT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.81%, more than EMLP's 2.76% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMLP
First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund
2.76%3.18%3.19%3.92%3.15%3.29%4.70%3.71%4.71%3.80%3.62%4.63%
FLRT
Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF
6.81%6.93%7.93%8.40%5.81%3.16%3.52%4.30%3.95%3.20%3.38%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLRT and EMLP have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMLP has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to FLRT (0.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLRT dropped -20.96% vs EMLP's -43.61%.

On 10-year performance, EMLP leads with 10.37% vs 4.82% for FLRT. On fees, FLRT is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EMLP has performed better with a 10.37% return vs 4.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLRT is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for EMLP.

FLRT has the higher dividend yield at 6.81%, compared with 2.76% for EMLP.

FLRT is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while EMLP is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Pacific Life and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for FLRT and 0.96% for EMLP.

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.67 vs 2.02), 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 FLRT and EMLP

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