GPRF vs. MLPI

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GPRF (Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF) and MLPI (NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GPRF is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Goldman Sachs US Preferred Stock and Hybrids Index, while MLPI is a MLPs fund actively managed by NEOS. GPRF is passively managed, while MLPI is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.24, they often move in opposite directions. GPRF charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for MLPI.

Performance

GPRF vs. MLPI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF (GPRF) and NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF (MLPI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GPRF achieves a 1.29% return, which is significantly lower than MLPI's 19.61% return.

GPRF

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: 1.29%
• 6M: 1.49%
• 1Y: 5.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MLPI

• 1D: 1.09%
• 1M: -2.18%
• YTD: 19.61%
• 6M: 18.17%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GPRF vs. MLPI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GPRF Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF	1.29%	0.21%
MLPI NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	19.61%	0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between GPRF and MLPI is -0.24, 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 Dec 18, 2025	-0.24

Return for Risk

GPRF vs. MLPI — Risk / Return Rank

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

GPRF

GPRF Risk / Return Rank: 43
GPRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
GPRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GPRF Omega Ratio Rank: 54
GPRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
GPRF Martin Ratio Rank: 41

MLPI

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

GPRF vs. MLPI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF (GPRF) 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.

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.

	GPRF	MLPI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.08	—	—

Drawdowns

GPRF vs. MLPI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GPRF drawdown since its inception was -4.36%, smaller than the maximum MLPI drawdown of -5.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GPRF and MLPI.

Drawdown Indicators

	GPRF	MLPI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.36%	-5.38%	+1.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-2.18%	+1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.89%	-1.49%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.90%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GPRF	MLPI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.67%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.15%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.72%	13.05%	-9.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.91%	13.05%	-9.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.91%	13.05%	-9.14%

GPRF vs. MLPI - Expense Ratio Comparison

GPRF has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

GPRF vs. MLPI - Dividend Comparison

GPRF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.65%, less than MLPI's 7.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GPRF Goldman Sachs Access U.S. Preferred Stock and Hybrid Securities ETF	5.65%	5.38%	2.10%
MLPI NEOS MLP & Energy Infrastructure High Income ETF	7.19%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GPRF and MLPI in my portfolio?

GPRF and MLPI have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GPRF or MLPI?

On fees, GPRF is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GPRF or MLPI?

GPRF is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for MLPI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GPRF or MLPI?

MLPI has the higher dividend yield at 7.19%, compared with 5.65% for GPRF.

What is the main difference between GPRF and MLPI?

GPRF is categorized as Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds, while MLPI is MLPs. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and NEOS. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GPRF and 0.68% for MLPI.