CNRG vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNRG is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNRG returned 5.21%/yr vs 3.41%/yr for BIL. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

CNRG vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNRG achieves a 36.68% return, which is significantly higher than BIL's 1.49% return.

CNRG

• 1D: -2.81%
• 1M: 18.72%
• YTD: 36.68%
• 6M: 32.67%
• 1Y: 117.30%
• 3Y*: 15.27%
• 5Y*: 5.21%
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 1.77%
• 1Y: 3.87%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.41%
• 10Y*: 2.18%

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

CNRG vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	36.68%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-15.68%	138.35%	63.26%	-2.87%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.49%	4.15%	5.19%	4.94%	1.40%	-0.10%	0.40%	2.03%	0.41%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG and BIL is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.03
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2018	-0.01

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 84
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

BIL

BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

CNRG vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

	CNRG	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	19.71	-16.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	174.16	-170.58
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	87.91	-86.45
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.65	355.35	-348.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.06	2,817.77	-2,800.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNRG vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG and BIL, 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

	CNRG	BIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25	19.71	-16.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15	13.16	-13.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	8.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	2.78	-2.16

Drawdowns

CNRG vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNRG	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.49%	-0.78%	-67.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.73%	-0.01%	-17.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.77%	-0.01%	-48.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.17%	-0.10%	-59.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.12%	0.00%	-11.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.82%	-0.26%	-31.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.90%	0.00%	+6.90%

Volatility

CNRG vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a higher volatility of 12.13% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.05%. This indicates that CNRG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNRG	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.13%	0.05%	+12.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.44%	0.13%	+25.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.49%	0.20%	+36.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.99%	0.26%	+33.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.78%	0.26%	+35.52%

CNRG vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than BIL's 3.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.86%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.01%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNRG and BIL in my portfolio?

CNRG and BIL have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CNRG or BIL?

CNRG has higher volatility (12.13%) compared to BIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, CNRG or BIL?

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 5.21% vs 3.41% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNRG or BIL?

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 5.21% return vs 3.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNRG or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNRG.

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

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.86%, compared with 1.01% for CNRG.

What is the main difference between CNRG and BIL?

CNRG is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 3.25), 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.