MLPR vs. CEFD
MLPR (ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN) and CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - MLPR is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Alerian MLP Index (150%), while CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MLPR returned 25.58%/yr vs 2.85%/yr for CEFD. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.95% expense ratio.
Performance
MLPR vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MLPR achieves a 24.85% return, which is significantly higher than CEFD's 5.55% return.
MLPR
- 1D
- 2.97%
- 1M
- -9.79%
- YTD
- 24.85%
- 6M
- 24.33%
- 1Y
- 28.25%
- 3Y*
- 31.47%
- 5Y*
- 25.58%
- 10Y*
- —
CEFD
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 5.55%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 16.51%
- 3Y*
- 14.99%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
MLPR vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN | 24.85% | 9.83% | 31.57% | 35.87% | 41.04% | 57.33% | -7.10% |
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 5.55% | 14.15% | 20.06% | 8.36% | -28.93% | 22.09% | 23.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between MLPR and CEFD is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2020 | 0.42 |
The correlation between MLPR and CEFD shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.42 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
MLPR vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank
MLPR
CEFD
MLPR vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). 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.
| MLPR | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.25 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.03 | 1.33 | +0.71 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.88 | 6.09 | -0.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MLPR vs. CEFD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MLPR drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than CEFD's maximum drawdown of -36.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPR and CEFD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MLPR | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.98% | -36.95% | -12.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.97% | -12.51% | -1.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.45% | -21.76% | -2.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.66% | -36.95% | +8.29% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.62% | -1.80% | -8.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.94% | -11.63% | +2.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.82% | 2.72% | +2.10% |
Volatility
MLPR vs. CEFD - Volatility Comparison
ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN (MLPR) has a higher volatility of 8.29% compared to ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) at 4.13%. This indicates that MLPR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MLPR | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.29% | 4.13% | +4.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.56% | 11.71% | +3.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.11% | 13.28% | +7.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.40% | 17.99% | +11.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.71% | 17.30% | +16.41% |
MLPR vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both MLPR and CEFD have an expense ratio of 0.95%.
Dividends
MLPR vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison
MLPR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.36%, less than CEFD's 14.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 14.84% | 14.88% | 13.90% | 14.76% | 16.56% | 10.31% | 5.37% |
MLPR ETRACS Quarterly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Alerian MLP Index ETN | 9.36% | 10.85% | 9.57% | 10.08% | 7.49% | 10.69% | 4.21% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MLPR and CEFD have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MLPR has higher volatility (8.29%) compared to CEFD (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLPR dropped -48.98% vs CEFD's -36.95%.
On 5-year performance, MLPR leads with 25.58% vs 2.85% for CEFD. Both ETFs have the same 0.95% expense ratio. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, MLPR has performed better with a 25.58% return vs 2.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MLPR and CEFD have the same expense ratio: 0.95% per year.
CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.84%, compared with 9.36% for MLPR.
MLPR tracks Alerian MLP Index (150%), while CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%).
MLPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 1.25), 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.
Find the right allocation for MLPR and CEFD
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