UNG vs. EQT
Compare and contrast key facts about United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) and EQT Corporation (EQT).
UNG is a passively managed fund by Concierge Technologies that tracks the performance of the Front Month Natural Gas. It was launched on Apr 18, 2007.
Performance
UNG vs. EQT - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
UNG vs. EQT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UNG United States Natural Gas Fund LP | -6.85% | -27.07% | -17.11% | -64.04% | 12.89% | 35.76% | -45.43% | -31.77% | 5.96% | -37.58% |
EQT EQT Corporation | 14.30% | 17.64% | 21.41% | 16.20% | 57.64% | 71.60% | 17.27% | -41.82% | -38.82% | -12.80% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UNG achieves a -6.85% return, which is significantly lower than EQT's 14.30% return. Over the past 10 years, UNG has underperformed EQT with an annualized return of -19.95%, while EQT has yielded a comparatively higher 6.24% annualized return.
UNG
- 1D
- -2.64%
- 1M
- -4.83%
- YTD
- -6.85%
- 6M
- -16.15%
- 1Y
- -44.83%
- 3Y*
- -25.63%
- 5Y*
- -21.70%
- 10Y*
- -19.95%
EQT
- 1D
- -4.01%
- 1M
- -0.89%
- YTD
- 14.30%
- 6M
- 9.41%
- 1Y
- 14.72%
- 3Y*
- 26.02%
- 5Y*
- 28.03%
- 10Y*
- 6.24%
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
UNG vs. EQT — Risk / Return Rank
UNG
EQT
UNG vs. EQT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) and EQT Corporation (EQT). 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.
| UNG | EQT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.71 | 0.41 | -1.11 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.83 | 0.76 | -1.59 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.90 | 1.10 | -0.20 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.90 | 0.85 | -1.75 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.31 | 1.68 | -2.99 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| UNG | EQT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.71 | 0.41 | -1.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.34 | 0.64 | -0.98 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.36 | 0.13 | -0.49 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.58 | 0.31 | -0.89 |
Correlation
The correlation between UNG and EQT is 0.36, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
UNG vs. EQT - Dividend Comparison
UNG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EQT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UNG United States Natural Gas Fund LP | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EQT EQT Corporation | 1.06% | 1.19% | 1.37% | 1.57% | 1.63% | 0.00% | 0.24% | 1.10% | 0.42% | 0.21% | 0.18% | 0.23% |
Drawdowns
UNG vs. EQT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UNG drawdown since its inception was -99.87%, which is greater than EQT's maximum drawdown of -91.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UNG and EQT.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| UNG | EQT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.87% | -91.51% | -8.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -52.53% | -18.39% | -34.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -92.42% | -42.56% | -49.86% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -93.49% | -88.28% | -5.21% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.86% | -10.07% | -89.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -89.87% | -23.37% | -66.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 36.11% | 9.31% | +26.80% |
Volatility
UNG vs. EQT - Volatility Comparison
United States Natural Gas Fund LP (UNG) has a higher volatility of 14.67% compared to EQT Corporation (EQT) at 9.09%. This indicates that UNG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| UNG | EQT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.67% | 9.09% | +5.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 54.12% | 24.01% | +30.11% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 63.90% | 36.12% | +27.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 63.91% | 43.81% | +20.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.87% | 48.96% | +5.91% |