CNRG vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. CNRG is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNRG returned 12.18%/yr vs 7.81%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

CNRG vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) 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, CNRG achieves a 23.15% return, which is significantly higher than FRNW's 20.76% return.

CNRG

• 1D: -4.63%
• 1M: -5.18%
• YTD: 23.15%
• 6M: 19.33%
• 1Y: 95.92%
• 3Y*: 12.18%
• 5Y*: 2.77%
• 10Y*: —

FRNW

• 1D: -3.60%
• 1M: -8.48%
• YTD: 20.76%
• 6M: 19.11%
• 1Y: 63.79%
• 3Y*: 7.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CNRG vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	23.15%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-2.10%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	20.76%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG and FRNW is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.91

The correlation between CNRG and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNRG vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNRG	FRNW
Industrials	37.1%	28.3%
Utilities	27.1%	45.2%
Energy	23.5%	20.5%
Technology	10.6%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 76
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 76
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 65
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) 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.

	CNRG	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	2.39	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	3.03	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.37	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.36	4.52	+0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.03	14.82	-1.80

CNRG vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG 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

CNRG vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNRG	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.49%	-59.37%	-9.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.01%	-14.20%	-3.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.77%	-45.14%	-3.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.92%	-12.80%	-7.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-33.06%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.39%	4.32%	+3.07%

Volatility

CNRG vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a higher volatility of 15.67% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 10.92%. This indicates that CNRG'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

	CNRG	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.67%	10.92%	+4.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.25%	19.84%	+7.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.05%	26.88%	+11.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.47%	28.55%	+5.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.98%	28.55%	+7.43%

CNRG vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, less than FRNW's 1.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.11%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.13%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNRG and FRNW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CNRG and FRNW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CNRG or FRNW?

CNRG has higher volatility (15.67%) compared to FRNW (10.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, CNRG or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, CNRG leads with 12.18% vs 7.81% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 10.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNRG or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 12.18% return vs 7.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNRG or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNRG.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.13%, compared with 1.11% for CNRG.

What is the main difference between CNRG and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 2.39), 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.