MFSM vs. FCG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MFSM (MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF) and FCG (First Trust Natural Gas ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFSM is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by MFS, while FCG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the ISE-Revere Natural Gas Index. MFSM is actively managed, while FCG is passively managed. Over the past year, MFSM returned 6.90% vs 16.99% for FCG. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. MFSM charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FCG.

Performance

MFSM vs. FCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM) and First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFSM achieves a 1.97% return, which is significantly lower than FCG's 17.54% return.

MFSM

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 1.38%
• YTD: 1.97%
• 6M: 2.31%
• 1Y: 6.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FCG

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -9.72%
• YTD: 17.54%
• 6M: 17.54%
• 1Y: 16.99%
• 3Y*: 10.20%
• 5Y*: 13.77%
• 10Y*: 3.91%

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

MFSM vs. FCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFSM MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF	1.97%	5.25%	-1.14%
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	17.54%	-2.28%	-1.67%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSM and FCG is -0.28, 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	-0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024	-0.19

Return for Risk

MFSM vs. FCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSM

MFSM Risk / Return Rank: 78
MFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
MFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
MFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 93
MFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
MFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 59

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 20
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

MFSM vs. FCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM) and First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG). 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.

	MFSM	FCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	0.63	+2.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.05	0.99	+3.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.12	+0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	0.95	+1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.61	2.77	+6.84

MFSM vs. FCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the FCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSM and FCG, 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

MFSM vs. FCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSM drawdown since its inception was -3.86%, smaller than the maximum FCG drawdown of -97.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSM and FCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFSM	FCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-97.20%	+93.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.65%	-17.90%	+15.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.44%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.33%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-85.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-76.30%	+76.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.86%	-65.39%	+64.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.72%	6.16%	-5.44%

Volatility

MFSM vs. FCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF (MFSM) is 0.72%, while First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a volatility of 9.31%. This indicates that MFSM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFSM	FCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.72%	9.31%	-8.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.01%	20.32%	-18.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62%	27.29%	-24.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.40%	33.43%	-30.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.40%	38.29%	-34.89%

MFSM vs. FCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFSM has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than FCG's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFSM vs. FCG - Dividend Comparison

MFSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.55%, more than FCG's 2.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	2.33%	2.86%	2.76%	3.25%	3.04%	1.73%	3.82%	2.87%	1.46%	1.56%	1.70%	4.79%
MFSM MFS Active Intermediate Muni Bond ETF	3.55%	3.53%	0.23%	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 MFSM and FCG in my portfolio?

MFSM and FCG have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFSM or FCG?

FCG has higher volatility (9.31%) compared to MFSM (0.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSM dropped -3.86% vs FCG's -97.20%.

Which ETF is better, MFSM or FCG?

On 1-year performance, FCG leads with 16.99% vs 6.90% for MFSM. On fees, MFSM is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, MFSM has been the lower-risk option at 0.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFSM or FCG?

Over the 1-year period, FCG has performed better with a 16.99% return vs 6.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFSM or FCG?

MFSM is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FCG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MFSM or FCG?

MFSM has the higher dividend yield at 3.55%, compared with 2.33% for FCG.

What is the main difference between MFSM and FCG?

MFSM is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FCG is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: MFS and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for MFSM and 0.60% for FCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 0.63), 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.