MFSG vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

MFSG (MFS Active Growth ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFSG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by MFS, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. MFSG is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, MFSG returned 20.82% vs 24.84% for ENFR. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MFSG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

MFSG vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) 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, MFSG achieves a 6.80% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 23.07% return.

MFSG

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 6.80%
• 6M: 6.76%
• 1Y: 20.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 1.01%
• 1M: -5.94%
• YTD: 23.07%
• 6M: 24.76%
• 1Y: 24.84%
• 3Y*: 28.26%
• 5Y*: 19.69%
• 10Y*: 11.81%

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

MFSG vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	6.80%	14.51%	-2.99%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	23.07%	5.88%	-3.05%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSG 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 Dec 5, 2024	0.10

The correlation between MFSG and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.10 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MFSG vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSG

MFSG Risk / Return Rank: 32
MFSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
MFSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
MFSG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
MFSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
MFSG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 50
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 46
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

MFSG vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) 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.

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.

	MFSG	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	1.69	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	2.35	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.29	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	2.89	-1.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.46	7.40	-2.94

MFSG vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSG Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is comparable to the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSG 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.

Drawdowns

MFSG vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSG drawdown since its inception was -23.24%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSG and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFSG	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.24%	-68.28%	+45.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.15%	-8.64%	-7.51%
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	-1.69%	-6.12%	+4.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.60%	-15.94%	+11.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.68%	3.36%	+1.32%

Volatility

MFSG vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) has a higher volatility of 6.70% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 5.42%. This indicates that MFSG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFSG	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.70%	5.42%	+1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.64%	11.57%	+2.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.05%	14.82%	+2.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.93%	19.24%	+2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.93%	24.68%	-2.75%

MFSG vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFSG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFSG vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

MFSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than ENFR's 4.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.08%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	0.07%	0.08%	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 MFSG and ENFR in my portfolio?

MFSG 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, MFSG or ENFR?

MFSG has higher volatility (6.70%) compared to ENFR (5.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSG dropped -23.24% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, MFSG or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 24.84% vs 20.82% for MFSG. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 5.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFSG or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 24.84% return vs 20.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFSG or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MFSG.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.08%, compared with 0.07% for MFSG.

What is the main difference between MFSG and ENFR?

MFSG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: MFS and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFSG and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.23), 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.