ACES vs. FRNW

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. ACES is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ACES returned -12.93%/yr vs 4.60%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

ACES vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a -5.87% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 10.45% return.

ACES

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -10.67%
• 6M: -13.85%
• YTD: -5.87%
• 1Y: 15.47%
• 3Y*: -12.93%
• 5Y*: -15.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.41%

FRNW

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -5.87%
• 6M: -0.30%
• YTD: 10.45%
• 1Y: 35.77%
• 3Y*: 4.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.59%

*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)
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	$2.69M	$3.07M	$3.04M
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	$628.98K	$1.05M	$2.64M

ACES vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	-5.87%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-0.02%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	10.45%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and FRNW is 0.88, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.88

The correlation between ACES and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	FRNW
Utilities	27.4%	42.0%
Technology	25.5%	23.1%
Industrials	17.8%	34.0%
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	-
Basic Materials	7.8%	0.9%
Financial Services	5.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	-
Energy	0.4%	8.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 20
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 21
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 19

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 48
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

ACES vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.38	1.28	-0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.74	1.82	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.22	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.42	1.60	-1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.21	5.16	-3.95

ACES vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 0.38, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and FRNW, 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. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-59.37%	-19.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.05%	-22.08%	-8.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-54.01%	-39.17%	-14.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-68.13%	-20.24%	-47.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.35%	-32.71%	-6.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.72%	6.83%	+3.89%

Volatility

ACES vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 10.28% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 8.48%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.28%	8.48%	+1.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.95%	20.82%	+5.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.62%	27.75%	+6.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.61%	28.55%	+8.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.69%	28.55%	+7.14%

ACES vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than FRNW's 1.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.73%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.24%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and FRNW in my portfolio?

ACES and FRNW have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACES or FRNW?

ACES has higher volatility (10.28%) compared to FRNW (8.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 4.60% vs -12.93% for ACES. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 8.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 4.60% return vs -12.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.24%, compared with 0.73% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs 0.38), 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.