NML vs. EMO

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NML (Neuberger Berman MLP) and EMO (ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund) are both MLPs funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, NML returned 10.22%/yr vs 6.86%/yr for EMO. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NML charges 2.72%/yr vs 13.90%/yr for EMO.

Performance

NML vs. EMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman MLP (NML) and ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund (EMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NML achieves a 21.38% return, which is significantly higher than EMO's 16.06% return. Over the past 10 years, NML has outperformed EMO with an annualized return of 10.22%, while EMO has yielded a comparatively lower 6.86% annualized return.

NML

• 1D: 1.73%
• 1M: -3.02%
• YTD: 21.38%
• 6M: 21.89%
• 1Y: 26.26%
• 3Y*: 26.03%
• 5Y*: 24.10%
• 10Y*: 10.22%

EMO

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -2.24%
• YTD: 16.06%
• 6M: 15.84%
• 1Y: 20.44%
• 3Y*: 32.27%
• 5Y*: 26.70%
• 10Y*: 6.86%

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

NML vs. EMO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NML Neuberger Berman MLP	21.38%	4.36%	40.55%	14.61%	32.75%	61.76%	-45.84%	10.60%	-23.02%	7.07%
EMO ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund	16.06%	7.38%	44.45%	31.76%	40.13%	74.70%	-64.47%	19.60%	-25.73%	0.07%

Correlation

The correlation between NML and EMO is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2013	0.74

Over the past year, the correlation between NML and EMO has dropped to 0.53 - well below their long-term average of 0.74, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

NML vs. EMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

NML

NML Risk / Return Rank: 33
NML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
NML Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
NML Omega Ratio Rank: 25
NML Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
NML Martin Ratio Rank: 35

EMO

EMO Risk / Return Rank: 18
EMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
EMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
EMO Omega Ratio Rank: 18
EMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
EMO Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

NML vs. EMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman MLP (NML) and ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund (EMO). 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.

	NML	EMO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.24	+0.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	1.82	+0.31
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.23	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	1.91	+0.87
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.98	4.24	+3.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NML vs. EMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NML Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the EMO Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NML and EMO, 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

	NML	EMO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.55	1.24	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.01	1.00	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29	0.17	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.07	0.11	-0.04

Drawdowns

NML vs. EMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NML drawdown since its inception was -90.48%, roughly equal to the maximum EMO drawdown of -95.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NML and EMO.

Drawdown Indicators

	NML	EMO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-90.48%	-95.06%	+4.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.67%	-10.87%	+1.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.92%	-18.81%	+1.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.40%	-28.59%	+7.19%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-84.84%	-93.02%	+8.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.58%	-6.43%	+0.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.10%	-31.97%	-5.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	4.89%	-1.53%

Volatility

NML vs. EMO - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Berman MLP (NML) has a higher volatility of 6.63% compared to ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund (EMO) at 6.24%. This indicates that NML's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NML	EMO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.63%	6.24%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	12.31%	+1.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.99%	16.62%	+0.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.94%	26.74%	-2.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.16%	41.26%	-6.10%

NML vs. EMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

NML has a 2.72% expense ratio, which is lower than EMO's 13.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NML vs. EMO - Dividend Comparison

NML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.25%, less than EMO's 8.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMO ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund	8.60%	9.41%	7.16%	6.79%	6.71%	6.71%	15.82%	10.94%	16.39%	10.85%	9.76%	11.88%
NML Neuberger Berman MLP	7.25%	8.24%	7.94%	10.19%	4.26%	3.54%	8.33%	9.76%	9.87%	7.04%	8.63%	15.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NML and EMO in my portfolio?

NML and EMO have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NML or EMO?

NML has higher volatility (6.63%) compared to EMO (6.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NML dropped -90.48% vs EMO's -95.06%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.24), 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.