PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GEL vs. ET
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

GEL vs. ET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Genesis Energy, L.P. (GEL) and Energy Transfer LP (ET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEL achieves a -0.56% return, which is significantly lower than ET's 22.86% return. Over the past 10 years, GEL has underperformed ET with an annualized return of -2.23%, while ET has yielded a comparatively higher 12.65% annualized return.


GEL

1D
-2.32%
1M
-10.17%
YTD
-0.56%
6M
-2.32%
1Y
-0.25%
3Y*
20.63%
5Y*
13.65%
10Y*
-2.23%

ET

1D
0.05%
1M
-0.96%
YTD
22.86%
6M
21.25%
1Y
17.66%
3Y*
24.39%
5Y*
21.90%
10Y*
12.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GEL vs. ET - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GEL
Genesis Energy, L.P.
-0.56%61.77%-8.37%19.90%1.05%84.99%-66.17%22.60%-9.18%-32.37%
ET
Energy Transfer LP
22.86%-9.37%53.87%27.87%55.74%42.96%-44.92%5.88%-17.74%-4.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GEL and ET is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.31

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

0.41

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

0.51

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

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2006

0.46

The correlation between GEL and ET shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.51 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap

GEL:

$1.86B

ET:

$67.59B

EPS

GEL:

$0.39

ET:

$1.36

PE Ratio

GEL:

38.72

ET:

14.36

PS Ratio

GEL:

1.11

ET:

0.78

PB Ratio

GEL:

3.47

ET:

1.36

Total Revenue (TTM)

GEL:

$1.68B

ET:

$89.38B

Gross Profit (TTM)

GEL:

$281.95M

ET:

$20.48B

EBITDA (TTM)

GEL:

$437.85M

ET:

$13.02B

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

GEL vs. ET — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEL
GEL Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
GEL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GEL Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
GEL Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
GEL Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
GEL Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
Martin Ratio Rank

ET
ET Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
ET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ET Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
ET Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
ET Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
ET Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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.

GEL vs. ET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Genesis Energy, L.P. (GEL) and Energy Transfer LP (ET). 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.


GELETDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

-0.01

1.09

-1.10

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.20

1.69

-1.49

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.19

-0.17

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

-0.01

1.77

-1.78

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

-0.04

3.90

-3.93

GEL vs. ET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEL Sharpe Ratio is -0.01, which is lower than the ET Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEL and ET, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GELETDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.01

1.09

-1.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.33

0.89

-0.55

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.04

0.36

-0.41

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.14

0.36

-0.22

Drawdowns

GEL vs. ET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEL drawdown since its inception was -91.63%, roughly equal to the maximum ET drawdown of -87.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEL and ET.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GELETDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-91.63%

-87.81%

-3.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.85%

-10.02%

-7.83%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-31.46%

-24.56%

-6.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.79%

-25.82%

-12.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.61%

-72.82%

-16.79%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-37.95%

-4.12%

-33.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-34.14%

-25.75%

-8.39%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.00%

4.55%

+2.45%

Volatility

GEL vs. ET - Volatility Comparison

Genesis Energy, L.P. (GEL) has a higher volatility of 8.71% compared to Energy Transfer LP (ET) at 5.97%. This indicates that GEL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GELETDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.71%

5.97%

+2.74%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.09%

11.89%

+7.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.06%

16.42%

+11.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

41.47%

24.90%

+16.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

51.18%

35.04%

+16.14%

Dividends

GEL vs. ET - Dividend Comparison

GEL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.54%, less than ET's 6.83% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ET
Energy Transfer LP
6.83%7.97%6.51%8.95%7.33%7.41%17.27%9.51%9.24%6.66%5.90%7.42%
GEL
Genesis Energy, L.P.
4.54%4.23%6.08%5.18%5.88%5.60%16.10%10.74%11.37%11.87%7.54%6.72%

Financials

GEL vs. ET - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Genesis Energy, L.P. and Energy Transfer LP. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.005.00B10.00B15.00B20.00B25.00B20222023202420252026
446.56M
27.77B
(GEL) Total Revenue
(ET) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

GEL vs. ET - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Genesis Energy, L.P. and Energy Transfer LP over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%202220232024202520260
23.9%
Portfolio components
GEL - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Genesis Energy, L.P. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 446.56M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.

ET - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a gross profit of 6.62B and revenue of 27.77B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 23.9%.

GEL - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Genesis Energy, L.P. reported an operating income of 76.61M and revenue of 446.56M, resulting in an operating margin of 17.2%.

ET - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported an operating income of 2.98B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in an operating margin of 10.7%.

GEL - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Genesis Energy, L.P. reported a net income of 19.37M and revenue of 446.56M, resulting in a net margin of 4.3%.

ET - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Transfer LP reported a net income of 1.25B and revenue of 27.77B, resulting in a net margin of 4.5%.


Frequently Asked Questions


GEL and ET have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GEL has higher volatility (8.71%) compared to ET (5.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEL dropped -91.63% vs ET's -87.81%.

ET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs -0.01), 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 GEL and ET

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