ACES vs. RNRG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and RNRG (Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index while RNRG tracks the Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -12.89%/yr vs -4.62%/yr for RNRG. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RNRG.

Performance

ACES vs. RNRG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ACES having a 9.28% return and RNRG slightly lower at 8.88%.

ACES

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

RNRG

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -4.53%
• YTD: 8.88%
• 6M: 9.48%
• 1Y: 28.40%
• 3Y*: 1.96%
• 5Y*: -4.62%
• 10Y*: 3.92%

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

ACES vs. RNRG - 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%	-9.81%
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	8.88%	29.61%	-22.00%	-12.82%	-15.30%	-12.78%	26.67%	37.04%	-1.24%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and RNRG is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018	0.66

The correlation between ACES and RNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. RNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	RNRG
Technology	30.1%	2.8%
Utilities	23.8%	92.2%
Industrials	21.6%	3.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	-
Basic Materials	7.3%	2.0%
Financial Services	4.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. RNRG — 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

RNRG

RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 59
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. RNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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	RNRG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	1.78	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.45	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.30	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	3.17	-0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.66	11.12	-5.46

ACES vs. RNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is comparable to the RNRG Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and RNRG, 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. RNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than RNRG's maximum drawdown of -58.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and RNRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	RNRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-58.79%	-20.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.82%	-9.00%	-8.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-35.23%	-23.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-52.17%	-22.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-58.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-63.00%	-35.57%	-27.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.99%	-24.48%	-14.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.58%	2.56%	+5.02%

Volatility

ACES vs. RNRG - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 14.00% compared to Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) at 5.83%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	RNRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.00%	5.83%	+8.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.21%	12.81%	+12.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.93%	16.03%	+17.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.52%	20.16%	+16.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.72%	19.64%	+16.08%

ACES vs. RNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than RNRG's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. RNRG - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than RNRG's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	1.38%	1.50%	1.48%	1.44%	1.15%	1.10%	3.16%	2.97%	5.22%	4.14%	5.02%	3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and RNRG in my portfolio?

ACES and RNRG have a correlation of 0.62, 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 RNRG?

ACES has higher volatility (14.00%) compared to RNRG (5.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs RNRG's -58.79%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or RNRG?

On 5-year performance, RNRG leads with -4.62% vs -12.89% for ACES. On fees, ACES is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RNRG has been the lower-risk option at 5.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or RNRG?

Over the 5-year period, RNRG has performed better with a -4.62% 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 RNRG?

ACES is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RNRG.

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

RNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and RNRG?

ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.65% for RNRG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 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.