QLTY vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QLTY (GMO U.S. Quality ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLTY is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P 500, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QLTY returned 23.44% vs 27.76% for ENFR. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QLTY charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

QLTY vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) 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, QLTY achieves a 5.56% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.

QLTY

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: -1.19%
• YTD: 5.56%
• 6M: 4.84%
• 1Y: 23.44%
• 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)

QLTY vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	5.56%	21.26%	21.02%	5.25%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.93%	5.88%	42.17%	3.50%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTY and ENFR is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2023	0.17

The correlation between QLTY and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.17 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QLTY vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLTY	ENFR
Technology	40.1%	-
Healthcare	22.1%	-
Communication Services	11.7%	-
Financial Services	7.8%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	-
Industrials	4.3%	3.4%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	98.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

QLTY vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTY

QLTY Risk / Return Rank: 53
QLTY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
QLTY Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
QLTY Omega Ratio Rank: 56
QLTY Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
QLTY Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

QLTY vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) 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.

	QLTY	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.88	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	2.59	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	3.23	-1.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.15	8.24	-0.09

QLTY vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTY Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTY 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

QLTY vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTY drawdown since its inception was -17.00%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTY and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTY	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.00%	-68.28%	+51.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.71%	-8.64%	-3.07%
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	-2.89%	-4.71%	+1.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.04%	-15.94%	+13.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	3.38%	-0.50%

Volatility

QLTY vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) is 4.05%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 5.69%. This indicates that QLTY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTY	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.05%	5.69%	-1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.74%	11.60%	-1.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.65%	14.86%	-2.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.68%	19.25%	-4.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.68%	24.68%	-10.00%

QLTY vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTY has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLTY vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

QLTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, 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%
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	0.72%	0.73%	0.79%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLTY and ENFR in my portfolio?

QLTY and ENFR have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLTY or ENFR?

ENFR has higher volatility (5.69%) compared to QLTY (4.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTY dropped -17.00% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, QLTY or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 27.76% vs 23.44% for QLTY. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, QLTY has been the lower-risk option at 4.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLTY or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 27.76% return vs 23.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTY or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for QLTY.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.72% for QLTY.

What is the main difference between QLTY and ENFR?

QLTY is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. QLTY tracks S&P 500, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: GMO and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for QLTY and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.87), 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.