FTWO vs. HAP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FTWO (Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF) and HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - FTWO tracks the Bloomberg Natural Resources and Security Total Return Index while HAP tracks the MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FTWO returned 30.91% vs 46.66% for HAP. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTWO charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for HAP.

Performance

FTWO vs. HAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF (FTWO) 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, FTWO achieves a 10.90% return, which is significantly lower than HAP's 21.49% return.

FTWO

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 10.90%
• 6M: 13.58%
• 1Y: 30.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HAP

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.64%
• YTD: 21.49%
• 6M: 23.70%
• 1Y: 46.66%
• 3Y*: 18.93%
• 5Y*: 11.51%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

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

FTWO vs. HAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FTWO Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF	10.90%	43.06%	14.97%	1.46%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	21.49%	34.91%	-4.08%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between FTWO and HAP is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 1, 2023	0.77

The correlation between FTWO and HAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

FTWO vs. HAP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FTWO	HAP
Industrials	32.2%	10.2%
Energy	29.1%	32.3%
Basic Materials	25.9%	36.7%
Utilities	11.7%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	6.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.2%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.4%
Technology	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

FTWO vs. HAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTWO

FTWO Risk / Return Rank: 49
FTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
FTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
FTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
FTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 44

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 89
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 88
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

FTWO vs. HAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF (FTWO) 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.

	FTWO	HAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	3.14	-1.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	4.01	-1.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.56	-0.27
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	5.65	-2.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.23	23.05	-15.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FTWO vs. HAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTWO Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is lower than the HAP Sharpe Ratio of 3.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTWO 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FTWO	HAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.72	3.14	-1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.31	0.26	+1.05

Drawdowns

FTWO vs. HAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTWO drawdown since its inception was -18.17%, smaller than the maximum HAP drawdown of -50.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTWO and HAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTWO	HAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.17%	-50.73%	+32.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.54%	-8.31%	-3.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.07%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.19%	-1.95%	-7.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.43%	-12.03%	+8.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.29%	2.03%	+2.26%

Volatility

FTWO vs. HAP - Volatility Comparison

Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF (FTWO) has a higher volatility of 5.79% compared to VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) at 4.37%. This indicates that FTWO'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

	FTWO	HAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.79%	4.37%	+1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.59%	12.24%	+2.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.09%	14.91%	+3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.23%	18.24%	+0.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	19.74%	-0.51%

FTWO vs. HAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTWO has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than HAP's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTWO vs. HAP - Dividend Comparison

FTWO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than HAP's 1.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FTWO Strive Natural Resources and Security ETF	1.01%	1.02%	1.23%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.87%	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 FTWO and HAP in my portfolio?

FTWO and HAP have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTWO or HAP?

FTWO has higher volatility (5.79%) compared to HAP (4.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTWO dropped -18.17% vs HAP's -50.73%.

Which ETF is better, FTWO or HAP?

On 1-year performance, HAP leads with 46.66% vs 30.91% for FTWO. On fees, HAP is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, HAP has been the lower-risk option at 4.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FTWO or HAP?

Over the 1-year period, HAP has performed better with a 46.66% return vs 30.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTWO or HAP?

HAP is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for FTWO.

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

HAP has the higher dividend yield at 1.87%, compared with 1.01% for FTWO.

What is the main difference between FTWO and HAP?

FTWO tracks Bloomberg Natural Resources and Security Total Return Index, while HAP tracks MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index. They also come from different issuers: Strive and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FTWO and 0.42% for HAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.14 vs 1.72), 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.