ACES vs. PWER

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. ACES is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, ACES returned 80.47% vs 75.33% for PWER. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

ACES vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with ACES having a 32.49% return and PWER slightly higher at 32.68%.

ACES

• 1D: 2.95%
• 1M: 20.25%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 6M: 32.78%
• 1Y: 80.47%
• 3Y*: -0.25%
• 5Y*: -8.07%
• 10Y*: —

PWER

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: 8.29%
• YTD: 32.68%
• 6M: 36.54%
• 1Y: 75.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACES vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	32.49%	25.44%	-26.71%	15.54%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	32.68%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.72%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and PWER is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.71

The correlation between ACES and PWER has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	PWER
Utilities	25.5%	1.9%
Technology	24.8%	3.8%
Industrials	20.3%	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	-
Basic Materials	9.3%	41.0%
Financial Services	5.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	-
Energy	0.5%	41.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. PWER — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 69
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 62

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 94
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 92
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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.

	ACES	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	3.84	-1.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	4.67	-1.58
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.62	-0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.47	8.57	-4.09
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.30	35.48	-24.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACES vs. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is lower than the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 3.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and PWER, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACES	PWER	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	3.84	-1.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.22	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	1.26	-1.03

Drawdowns

ACES vs. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-29.68%	-49.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.44%	-9.07%	-8.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-55.14%	0.00%	-55.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.86%	-6.23%	-32.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	2.19%	+4.72%

Volatility

ACES vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 9.41% compared to Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) at 6.08%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.41%	6.08%	+3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.55%	15.50%	+7.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.32%	19.73%	+12.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.15%	23.38%	+12.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.58%	23.38%	+12.20%

ACES vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than PWER's 1.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.53%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	1.04%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and PWER in my portfolio?

ACES and PWER have a correlation of 0.61, 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 PWER?

ACES has higher volatility (9.41%) compared to PWER (6.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or PWER?

On 1-year performance, ACES leads with 80.47% vs 75.33% for PWER. On fees, ACES is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 6.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, ACES has performed better with a 80.47% return vs 75.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or PWER?

ACES is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PWER has the higher dividend yield at 1.04%, compared with 0.53% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 2.51), 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.