MULL vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MULL (GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MULL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. MULL is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, MULL returned 3622.12% vs 27.76% for ENFR. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MULL charges 1.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

MULL vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) 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, MULL achieves a 780.13% return, which is significantly higher than ENFR's 24.93% return.

MULL

• 1D: -26.45%
• 1M: 69.00%
• YTD: 780.13%
• 6M: 832.94%
• 1Y: 3,622.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ENFR

• 1D: 1.51%
• 1M: -4.52%
• YTD: 24.93%
• 6M: 25.03%
• 1Y: 27.76%
• 3Y*: 28.90%
• 5Y*: 20.07%
• 10Y*: 11.98%

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

MULL vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF	780.13%	558.51%	-39.23%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.93%	5.88%	-0.42%

Correlation

The correlation between MULL and ENFR is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2024	0.08

The correlation between MULL and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MULL vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MULL	ENFR
Technology	66.7%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	98.5%
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	3.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

MULL vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MULL

MULL Risk / Return Rank: 98
MULL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
MULL Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
MULL Omega Ratio Rank: 95
MULL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
MULL Martin Ratio Rank: 99

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 57
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 54
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

MULL vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) 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.

	MULL	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	25.24	1.88	+23.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.61	2.59	+3.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.71	1.32	+0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	69.24	3.23	+66.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	221.31	8.24	+213.07

MULL vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MULL Sharpe Ratio is 25.24, which is higher than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MULL 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

MULL vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MULL drawdown since its inception was -72.29%, which is greater than ENFR's maximum drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MULL and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MULL	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-72.29%	-68.28%	-4.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-53.09%	-8.64%	-44.45%
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	-26.45%	-4.71%	-21.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.52%	-15.94%	-4.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.58%	3.38%	+13.20%

Volatility

MULL vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF (MULL) has a higher volatility of 74.91% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 5.69%. This indicates that MULL'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

	MULL	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	74.91%	5.69%	+69.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	119.83%	11.60%	+108.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	145.72%	14.86%	+130.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	142.49%	19.25%	+123.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	142.49%	24.68%	+117.81%

MULL vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MULL has a 1.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

MULL vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

MULL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than ENFR's 4.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	4.02%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
MULL GraniteShares 2x Long MU Daily ETF	0.04%	0.39%	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 MULL and ENFR in my portfolio?

MULL and ENFR have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MULL or ENFR?

MULL has higher volatility (74.91%) compared to ENFR (5.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MULL dropped -72.29% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, MULL or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, MULL leads with 3622.12% vs 27.76% for ENFR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 5.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MULL or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, MULL has performed better with a 3622.12% return vs 27.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MULL or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 1.50% for MULL.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.04% for MULL.

What is the main difference between MULL and ENFR?

MULL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 1.50% for MULL and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MULL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (25.24 vs 1.88), 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.