FTOH vs. ENFR
FTOH (Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FTOH is a Municipal Bonds fund tracking the Actively Managed, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.
Performance
FTOH vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTOH achieves a 2.43% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 23.07% return.
FTOH
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 1.79%
- YTD
- 2.43%
- 6M
- 2.49%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ENFR
- 1D
- 1.01%
- 1M
- -5.94%
- YTD
- 23.07%
- 6M
- 24.76%
- 1Y
- 24.84%
- 3Y*
- 28.26%
- 5Y*
- 19.69%
- 10Y*
- 11.81%
FTOH vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.43% | 0.08% |
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 23.07% | 3.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTOH and ENFR is -0.19, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2025 | -0.19 |
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
FTOH vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank
FTOH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ENFR
FTOH vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF (FTOH) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). 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.
| FTOH | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.29 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.89 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.40 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FTOH vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTOH drawdown since its inception was -2.59%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTOH and ENFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTOH | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.59% | -68.28% | +65.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.64% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.58% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.29% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -62.64% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.06% | -6.12% | +6.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.53% | -15.94% | +15.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.36% | — |
Volatility
FTOH vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTOH | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.42% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.57% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.58% | 14.82% | -11.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.58% | 19.24% | -15.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.58% | 24.68% | -21.10% |
FTOH vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FTOH and ENFR have an expense ratio of 0.35%.
Dividends
FTOH vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison
FTOH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.17%, less than ENFR's 4.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 4.08% | 4.77% | 4.41% | 5.48% | 5.23% | 7.86% | 7.57% | 5.81% | 3.98% | 2.98% | 3.31% | 3.34% |
FTOH Franklin Ohio Municipal Income ETF | 2.17% | 0.56% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FTOH and ENFR have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTOH and ENFR have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.
ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.08%, compared with 2.17% for FTOH.
FTOH is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while ENFR is Energy Equities. FTOH tracks Actively Managed, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and SS&C.
Find the right allocation for FTOH and ENFR
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