ILS vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. ILS is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, ILS returned 7.67% vs 25.40% for ENFR. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. ILS charges 1.58%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

ILS vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILS achieves a 1.81% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.60% return.

ILS

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 2.12%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -1.01%
• YTD: 24.60%
• 6M: 24.41%
• 1Y: 25.40%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 19.91%
• 10Y*: 11.96%

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

ILS vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	1.81%	5.60%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.60%	-1.36%

Correlation

The correlation between ILS and ENFR is -0.13, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	-0.13

Return for Risk

ILS vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILS

ILS Risk / Return Rank: 93
ILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
ILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
ILS Omega Ratio Rank: 92
ILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ILS Martin Ratio Rank: 97

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 50
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 47
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

ILS vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) 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.

	ILS	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	1.75	+1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.56	2.41	+2.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.62	1.30	+0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	13.93	2.95	+10.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	46.57	8.06	+38.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ILS vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILS Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is higher than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILS and ENFR, 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

	ILS	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79	1.75	+1.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.04	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.90	0.34	+1.55

Drawdowns

ILS vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILS drawdown since its inception was -1.56%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILS and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILS	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.56%	-68.28%	+66.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.55%	-8.64%	+8.09%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.95%	+4.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.25%	-15.98%	+15.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.17%	3.16%	-2.99%

Volatility

ILS vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) is 0.88%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that ILS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILS	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.88%	6.18%	-5.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.69%	11.47%	-9.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.77%	14.64%	-11.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.38%	19.30%	-15.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.38%	24.69%	-21.31%

ILS vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILS has a 1.58% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILS vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

ILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.09%, more than ENFR's 4.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.03%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	8.09%	6.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILS and ENFR in my portfolio?

ILS and ENFR have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILS or ENFR?

ENFR has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to ILS (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILS dropped -1.56% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, ILS or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 25.40% vs 7.67% for ILS. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILS or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 25.40% return vs 7.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILS or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ILS or ENFR?

ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.09%, compared with 4.03% for ENFR.

What is the main difference between ILS and ENFR?

ILS is categorized as Nontraditional Bonds, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brookmont and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 1.58% for ILS and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 1.75), 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.