MGNR vs. PXJ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MGNR (American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF) and PXJ (Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. MGNR is actively managed, while PXJ is passively managed. Over the past year, MGNR returned 79.57% vs 89.31% for PXJ. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MGNR charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for PXJ.

Performance

MGNR vs. PXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR) and Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGNR achieves a 28.15% return, which is significantly lower than PXJ's 47.03% return.

MGNR

• 1D: 2.10%
• 1M: 4.78%
• YTD: 28.15%
• 6M: 31.78%
• 1Y: 79.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PXJ

• 1D: 1.35%
• 1M: -5.54%
• YTD: 47.03%
• 6M: 44.84%
• 1Y: 89.31%
• 3Y*: 25.03%
• 5Y*: 17.57%
• 10Y*: -0.74%

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

MGNR vs. PXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MGNR American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF	28.15%	50.57%	22.78%
PXJ Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF	47.03%	8.74%	3.19%

Correlation

The correlation between MGNR and PXJ is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2024	0.54

The correlation between MGNR and PXJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (1 year) to 0.54 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MGNR vs. PXJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MGNR

MGNR Risk / Return Rank: 91
MGNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
MGNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
MGNR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MGNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
MGNR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

PXJ

PXJ Risk / Return Rank: 91
PXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
PXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
PXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 84
PXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
PXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

MGNR vs. PXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR) and Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ). 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.

	MGNR	PXJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.49	3.40	+0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	4.14	-0.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.51	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.75	9.00	-2.25
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	27.40	26.58	+0.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MGNR vs. PXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGNR Sharpe Ratio is 3.49, which is comparable to the PXJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGNR and PXJ, 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

	MGNR	PXJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.49	3.40	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	-0.02	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.81	-0.04	+1.86

Drawdowns

MGNR vs. PXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGNR drawdown since its inception was -22.06%, smaller than the maximum PXJ drawdown of -94.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGNR and PXJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MGNR	PXJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.06%	-94.82%	+72.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.38%	-10.10%	-2.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-40.03%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-40.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-87.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-66.40%	+66.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.87%	-55.67%	+51.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.05%	3.42%	-0.37%

Volatility

MGNR vs. PXJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF (MGNR) is 6.33%, while Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ) has a volatility of 7.76%. This indicates that MGNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MGNR	PXJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.33%	7.76%	-1.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.57%	18.28%	-0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.04%	26.40%	-3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.02%	34.57%	-9.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.02%	39.48%	-14.46%

MGNR vs. PXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGNR has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than PXJ's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

MGNR vs. PXJ - Dividend Comparison

MGNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than PXJ's 2.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MGNR American Beacon GLG Natural Resources ETF	1.05%	1.17%	0.79%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PXJ Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF	2.19%	2.91%	3.34%	1.99%	0.65%	2.40%	4.72%	1.87%	0.99%	2.75%	1.18%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MGNR and PXJ in my portfolio?

MGNR and PXJ have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MGNR or PXJ?

PXJ has higher volatility (7.76%) compared to MGNR (6.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MGNR dropped -22.06% vs PXJ's -94.82%.

Which ETF is better, MGNR or PXJ?

On 1-year performance, PXJ leads with 89.31% vs 79.57% for MGNR. On fees, PXJ is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, MGNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MGNR or PXJ?

Over the 1-year period, PXJ has performed better with a 89.31% return vs 79.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MGNR or PXJ?

PXJ is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for MGNR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MGNR or PXJ?

PXJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.19%, compared with 1.05% for MGNR.

What is the main difference between MGNR and PXJ?

They also come from different issuers: American Beacon and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for MGNR and 0.63% for PXJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MGNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 3.40), 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.