ACES vs. CNRG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index while CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -12.89%/yr vs 2.77%/yr for CNRG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNRG.

Performance

ACES vs. CNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a 9.28% return, which is significantly lower than CNRG's 23.15% return.

ACES

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 6M: 4.82%
• 1Y: 42.77%
• 3Y*: -5.11%
• 5Y*: -12.89%
• 10Y*: —

CNRG

• 1D: -4.63%
• 1M: -5.18%
• YTD: 23.15%
• 6M: 19.33%
• 1Y: 95.92%
• 3Y*: 12.18%
• 5Y*: 2.77%
• 10Y*: —

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

ACES vs. CNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	9.28%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-6.13%
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	23.15%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-15.68%	138.35%	63.26%	-2.05%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and CNRG is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2018	0.92

The correlation between ACES and CNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. CNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	CNRG
Technology	30.1%	10.6%
Utilities	23.8%	27.1%
Industrials	21.6%	37.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	1.6%
Basic Materials	7.3%	-
Financial Services	4.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	23.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. CNRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 39
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 39

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 76
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

ACES vs. CNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). 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.

	ACES	CNRG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	2.53	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.94	-1.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.38	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	5.36	-2.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.66	13.03	-7.37

ACES vs. CNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is lower than the CNRG Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and CNRG, 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

ACES vs. CNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than CNRG's maximum drawdown of -68.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and CNRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	CNRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-68.49%	-10.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.82%	-18.01%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-48.77%	-9.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-59.17%	-15.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-63.00%	-19.92%	-43.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.99%	-31.72%	-7.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.58%	7.39%	+0.19%

Volatility

ACES vs. CNRG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is 14.00%, while SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a volatility of 15.67%. This indicates that ACES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	CNRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.00%	15.67%	-1.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.21%	27.25%	-2.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.93%	38.05%	-4.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.52%	34.47%	+2.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.72%	35.98%	-0.26%

ACES vs. CNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CNRG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. CNRG - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than CNRG's 1.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.11%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and CNRG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ACES and CNRG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ACES or CNRG?

CNRG has higher volatility (15.67%) compared to ACES (14.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs CNRG's -68.49%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or CNRG?

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 2.77% vs -12.89% for ACES. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, ACES has been the lower-risk option at 14.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or CNRG?

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 2.77% return vs -12.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or CNRG?

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACES or CNRG?

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.11%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and CNRG?

ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.45% for CNRG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 1.27), 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.