SPBW vs. ENFR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SPBW (AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SPBW is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by AllianzIM, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. SPBW is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, SPBW returned 11.34% vs 27.76% for ENFR. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SPBW charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

SPBW vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF (SPBW) 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, SPBW achieves a 4.22% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.93% return.

SPBW

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 0.11%
• YTD: 4.22%
• 6M: 4.12%
• 1Y: 11.34%
• 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)

SPBW vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
SPBW AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF	4.22%	9.64%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	24.93%	4.04%

Correlation

The correlation between SPBW and ENFR is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 8, 2025	0.18

The correlation between SPBW and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.18 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SPBW vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SPBW	ENFR
Technology	38.4%	-
Financial Services	11.0%	0.1%
Communication Services	10.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	-
Healthcare	8.4%	-
Industrials	7.9%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	-
Energy	3.2%	98.5%
Utilities	2.1%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.7%	-

Return for Risk

SPBW vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SPBW

SPBW Risk / Return Rank: 90
SPBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
SPBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
SPBW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
SPBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
SPBW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

SPBW vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF (SPBW) 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.

	SPBW	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	1.88	+0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.11	2.59	+1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.32	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.98	3.23	+0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.18	8.24	+12.93

SPBW vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SPBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPBW 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

SPBW vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPBW drawdown since its inception was -8.76%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPBW and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SPBW	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.76%	-68.28%	+59.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.86%	-8.64%	+5.78%
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	-0.45%	-4.71%	+4.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.76%	-15.94%	+15.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.54%	3.38%	-2.84%

Volatility

SPBW vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF (SPBW) is 1.31%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 5.69%. This indicates that SPBW 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

	SPBW	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.31%	5.69%	-4.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.32%	11.60%	-8.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.19%	14.86%	-10.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.54%	19.25%	-11.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.54%	24.68%	-17.14%

SPBW vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SPBW has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

SPBW vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

SPBW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ENFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%.

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%
SPBW AllianzIM Buffer20 Allocation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	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 SPBW and ENFR in my portfolio?

SPBW and ENFR have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SPBW or ENFR?

ENFR has higher volatility (5.69%) compared to SPBW (1.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SPBW dropped -8.76% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, SPBW or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, ENFR leads with 27.76% vs 11.34% for SPBW. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, SPBW has been the lower-risk option at 1.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SPBW or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 27.76% return vs 11.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SPBW or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for SPBW.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.02%, compared with 0.00% for SPBW.

What is the main difference between SPBW and ENFR?

SPBW is categorized as Defined Outcome, while ENFR is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: AllianzIM and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for SPBW and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SPBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 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.