MFIG vs. EIPX
MFIG (Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF) and EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFIG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool Innovative Growth Index, while EIPX is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by First Trust. MFIG is passively managed, while EIPX is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. MFIG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for EIPX.
Performance
MFIG vs. EIPX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFIG achieves a 0.49% return, which is significantly lower than EIPX's 19.71% return.
MFIG
- 1D
- -1.38%
- 1M
- -1.61%
- YTD
- 0.49%
- 6M
- -0.92%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EIPX
- 1D
- 0.83%
- 1M
- -4.15%
- YTD
- 19.71%
- 6M
- 20.38%
- 1Y
- 24.65%
- 3Y*
- 20.84%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MFIG vs. EIPX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 0.49% | -0.09% |
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF | 19.71% | -1.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFIG and EIPX 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 Dec 9, 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
MFIG vs. EIPX — Risk / Return Rank
MFIG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
EIPX
MFIG vs. EIPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF (MFIG) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). 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.
| MFIG | EIPX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.37 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 4.79 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 14.89 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MFIG vs. EIPX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFIG drawdown since its inception was -14.29%, smaller than the maximum EIPX drawdown of -15.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFIG and EIPX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFIG | EIPX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.29% | -15.43% | +1.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.17% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.43% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.73% | -4.38% | -1.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.59% | -2.28% | -2.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.67% | — |
Volatility
MFIG vs. EIPX - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFIG | EIPX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.41% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 8.42% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.12% | 11.15% | +5.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.12% | 15.02% | +2.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.12% | 15.02% | +2.10% |
MFIG vs. EIPX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFIG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than EIPX's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFIG vs. EIPX - Dividend Comparison
MFIG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EIPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.73%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF | 2.73% | 3.23% | 3.27% | 3.48% | 0.34% |
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFIG and EIPX 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.
On fees, MFIG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFIG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.
EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.73%, compared with 0.00% for MFIG.
MFIG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while EIPX is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MFIG and 0.95% for EIPX.
Find the right allocation for MFIG and EIPX
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