TMFC vs. ENFR
TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFC is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool 100 Index, while ENFR is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFC returned 14.51%/yr vs 19.69%/yr for ENFR. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.
Performance
TMFC vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFC achieves a 5.63% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 23.07% return.
TMFC
- 1D
- -0.84%
- 1M
- -2.18%
- YTD
- 5.63%
- 6M
- 5.27%
- 1Y
- 23.51%
- 3Y*
- 24.09%
- 5Y*
- 14.51%
- 10Y*
- —
ENFR
- 1D
- 1.01%
- 1M
- -5.94%
- YTD
- 23.07%
- 6M
- 24.76%
- 1Y
- 24.84%
- 3Y*
- 28.26%
- 5Y*
- 19.69%
- 10Y*
- 11.81%
TMFC vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF | 5.63% | 19.55% | 35.17% | 47.04% | -30.86% | 25.30% | 42.00% | 34.70% | -5.85% |
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 23.07% | 5.88% | 42.17% | 15.63% | 17.48% | 39.97% | -24.14% | 21.60% | -20.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFC and ENFR is -0.13, 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 | -0.13 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2018 | 0.35 |
The correlation between TMFC and ENFR shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.35 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
TMFC vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMFC
ENFR
Technology
-
Communication Services
-
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
Utilities
Technology
TMFC
ENFR
-
Communication Services
TMFC
ENFR
-
Financial Services
TMFC
ENFR
Consumer Cyclical
TMFC
ENFR
-
Healthcare
TMFC
ENFR
-
Industrials
TMFC
ENFR
Consumer Defensive
TMFC
ENFR
-
Energy
TMFC
ENFR
Real Estate
TMFC
ENFR
-
Basic Materials
TMFC
ENFR
-
Utilities
TMFC
ENFR
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
TMFC vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank
TMFC
ENFR
TMFC vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.
| TMFC | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.29 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.87 | 2.89 | -1.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.78 | 7.40 | -0.63 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFC vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and ENFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFC | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.06% | -68.28% | +35.22% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.64% | -8.64% | -4.00% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.06% | -15.58% | -4.48% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.06% | -20.29% | -12.77% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -62.64% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.67% | -6.12% | +2.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.75% | -15.94% | +9.19% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.48% | 3.36% | +0.12% |
Volatility
TMFC vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison
Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) have volatilities of 5.31% and 5.42%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFC | ENFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.31% | 5.42% | -0.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.15% | 11.57% | -0.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.24% | 14.82% | -0.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.48% | 19.24% | +1.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.00% | 24.68% | -2.68% |
TMFC vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFC vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison
TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than ENFR's 4.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF | 4.08% | 4.77% | 4.41% | 5.48% | 5.23% | 7.86% | 7.57% | 5.81% | 3.98% | 2.98% | 3.31% | 3.34% |
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF | 0.14% | 0.14% | 0.40% | 0.26% | 0.27% | 0.23% | 0.42% | 0.50% | 0.61% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFC and ENFR have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ENFR has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to TMFC (5.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs ENFR's -68.28%.
On 5-year performance, ENFR leads with 19.69% vs 14.51% for TMFC. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 5.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 19.69% return vs 14.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TMFC.
ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.08%, compared with 0.14% for TMFC.
TMFC is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. TMFC tracks Motley Fool 100 Index, while ENFR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 0.35% for ENFR.
ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.66), 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 TMFC and ENFR
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