Global X-MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (MLPX) provides a higher distribution yield and a lower expense ratio than the First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund (EMLP), according to a comparison of the two energy infrastructure exchange-traded funds. MLPX delivers a 4.2% trailing-12-month yield on a recent share price of approximately $71.27, while EMLP offers a 2.9% yield based on a recent share price of approximately $42.46.
The cost structure favors MLPX for long-term holders. The fund charges a 0.45% expense ratio, significantly less than the 0.95% fee associated with EMLP. This lower cost structure, combined with the higher payout, positions MLPX as a more affordable option for income-focused investors seeking exposure to physical energy assets.
The funds differ in their sector composition and holdings count. EMLP maintains a diversified portfolio of 58 positions, allocating 49% of its assets to utilities, 46% to energy, and 4% to industrials. Its largest holdings include Enterprise Products Partners L.P. at 8.8%, Energy Transfer LP at 7.6%, and MPLX LP at 4.4%. Launched in 2012, EMLP incorporates an ESG screen into its selection process. In contrast, MLPX offers a pure-play strategy with 100% exposure to the energy sector and 29 holdings. It tracks the Solactive MLP & Energy Infrastructure Index and launched in 2013. Top positions in MLPX include Williams Cos. Inc., TC Energy Corp, and Enbridge Inc, each accounting for roughly 9% of the portfolio.
Despite EMLP having a higher allocation to small-cap stocks at 24% compared to MLPX's 15%, historical performance data does not reflect the expected volatility or growth advantage typically associated with smaller companies. Over the past three, five, and ten years, MLPX has outperformed EMLP. MLPX returned 23.9% annualized over the three-year period, 20.1% over five years, and 10.4% over ten years. EMLP trailed these figures with annualized returns of 10.4%, 19.6%, and 9% over the same respective periods.
Concentration risk presents a distinction between the two funds. MLPX is more heavily weighted toward its largest positions, with its top ten holdings comprising two-thirds of the portfolio. Both ETFs simplify investing in master limited partnerships by handling complex accounting and issuing a single 1099 form to shareholders, avoiding the need for individual K-1 forms.
The comparison suggests that while EMLP offers broader sector diversification, MLPX’s lower fees and superior historical returns make it a potentially stronger candidate for investors prioritizing yield and performance in the energy infrastructure sector.