ACES vs. TAN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index while TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -12.09%/yr vs -6.08%/yr for TAN. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TAN.

Performance

ACES vs. TAN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a 14.56% return, which is significantly lower than TAN's 24.41% return.

ACES

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: -5.13%
• YTD: 14.56%
• 6M: 8.10%
• 1Y: 49.72%
• 3Y*: -3.60%
• 5Y*: -12.09%
• 10Y*: —

TAN

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: 24.41%
• 6M: 18.89%
• 1Y: 90.67%
• 3Y*: -3.33%
• 5Y*: -6.08%
• 10Y*: 12.83%

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

ACES vs. TAN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	14.56%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-9.81%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	24.41%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	233.96%	66.53%	-19.06%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and TAN is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018	0.86

The correlation between ACES and TAN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. TAN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	TAN
Technology	30.1%	65.1%
Utilities	23.8%	29.2%
Industrials	21.6%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	-
Basic Materials	7.3%	-
Financial Services	4.4%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	57.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. TAN — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 45
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 38
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 42

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 74
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 61
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. TAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). 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	TAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	2.38	-0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	3.03	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.36	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.80	4.35	-1.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.65	13.98	-7.33

ACES vs. TAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is lower than the TAN Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and TAN, 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. TAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, smaller than the maximum TAN drawdown of -95.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and TAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	TAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-95.29%	+16.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.82%	-20.94%	+3.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-64.40%	+5.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-73.95%	-0.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-61.21%	-71.94%	+10.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.98%	-78.47%	+39.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.50%	6.51%	+0.99%

Volatility

ACES vs. TAN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is 13.71%, while Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a volatility of 16.46%. This indicates that ACES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TAN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	TAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.71%	16.46%	-2.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.88%	28.51%	-3.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.66%	38.32%	-4.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.47%	40.11%	-3.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.69%	38.17%	-2.48%

ACES vs. TAN - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than TAN's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. TAN - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, while TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.60%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and TAN in my portfolio?

ACES and TAN have a correlation of 0.86, 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 TAN?

TAN has higher volatility (16.46%) compared to ACES (13.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs TAN's -95.29%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or TAN?

On 5-year performance, TAN leads with -6.08% vs -12.09% for ACES. On fees, ACES is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, ACES has been the lower-risk option at 13.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or TAN?

Over the 5-year period, TAN has performed better with a -6.08% return vs -12.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or TAN?

ACES is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

ACES has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between ACES and TAN?

ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.69% for TAN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 1.49), 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.