USNG vs. ENFR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) and ENFR (Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. USNG is actively managed, while ENFR is passively managed. Over the past year, USNG returned 32.07% vs 29.02% for ENFR. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. USNG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for ENFR.

Performance

USNG vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) 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, USNG achieves a 25.43% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 28.27% return.

USNG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -3.22%
• 6M: 12.87%
• YTD: 25.43%
• 1Y: 32.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.38%

ENFR

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 3.92%
• 6M: 19.23%
• YTD: 28.27%
• 1Y: 29.02%
• 3Y*: 26.80%
• 5Y*: 21.89%
• 10Y*: 12.14%
• ALL TIME*: 8.59%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	$5.27M	$3.93M	$3.16M
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	$437.77K	$274.58K	$158.86K

USNG vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	25.43%	10.51%
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	28.27%	2.35%

Correlation

The correlation between USNG and ENFR is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	0.62

The correlation between USNG and ENFR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

USNG vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 76
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 72
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

ENFR

ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 79
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 67

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

USNG vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) 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.

	USNG	ENFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.89	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	2.62	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.32	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	3.33	-0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.67	8.16	+2.50

USNG vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USNG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USNG 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

USNG vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USNG drawdown since its inception was -11.93%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USNG and ENFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	USNG	ENFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.93%	-68.28%	+56.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.93%	-8.64%	-3.29%
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	-8.47%	-2.57%	-5.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.85%	-15.83%	+13.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	3.52%	-0.59%

Volatility

USNG vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) has a higher volatility of 6.49% compared to Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) at 5.44%. This indicates that USNG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USNG	ENFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.49%	5.44%	+1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.82%	12.30%	+1.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.46%	15.24%	+2.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.29%	19.19%	-1.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.29%	24.65%	-7.36%

USNG vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

USNG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ENFR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

USNG vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

USNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, less than ENFR's 3.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ENFR Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF	3.91%	4.77%	4.41%	5.48%	5.23%	7.86%	7.57%	5.81%	3.98%	2.98%	3.31%	3.34%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.54%	1.10%	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 USNG and ENFR in my portfolio?

USNG and ENFR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, USNG or ENFR?

USNG has higher volatility (6.49%) compared to ENFR (5.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, USNG dropped -11.93% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

Which ETF is better, USNG or ENFR?

On 1-year performance, USNG leads with 32.07% vs 29.02% for ENFR. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ENFR has been the lower-risk option at 5.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, USNG or ENFR?

Over the 1-year period, USNG has performed better with a 32.07% return vs 29.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, USNG or ENFR?

ENFR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for USNG.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 1.54% for USNG.

What is the main difference between USNG and ENFR?

They also come from different issuers: Amplify and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for USNG and 0.35% for ENFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 1.79), 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.