CNRG vs. KRBN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and KRBN (KraneShares Global Carbon ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNRG is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while KRBN is a Commodities fund tracking the IHS Markit Global Carbon Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNRG returned 2.77%/yr vs 5.90%/yr for KRBN. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KRBN.

Performance

CNRG vs. KRBN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) and KraneShares Global Carbon ETF (KRBN). 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 KRBN's -5.96% return.

CNRG

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

KRBN

• 1D: -1.71%
• 1M: 3.12%
• YTD: -5.96%
• 6M: -6.23%
• 1Y: 11.29%
• 3Y*: 0.32%
• 5Y*: 5.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

CNRG vs. KRBN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	23.15%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-15.68%	87.69%
KRBN KraneShares Global Carbon ETF	-5.96%	23.11%	-13.56%	8.01%	-12.75%	107.69%	25.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG and KRBN is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2020	0.13

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. KRBN — 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

KRBN

KRBN Risk / Return Rank: 16
KRBN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
KRBN Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
KRBN Omega Ratio Rank: 18
KRBN Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
KRBN Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. KRBN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) and KraneShares Global Carbon ETF (KRBN). 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	KRBN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	0.59	+1.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	0.89	+2.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.12	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.36	0.45	+4.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.03	1.16	+11.87

CNRG vs. KRBN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is higher than the KRBN Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG and KRBN, 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. KRBN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, which is greater than KRBN's maximum drawdown of -36.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and KRBN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNRG	KRBN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.49%	-36.42%	-32.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.01%	-24.98%	+6.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.77%	-27.34%	-21.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.17%	-36.42%	-22.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.92%	-14.28%	-5.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-16.12%	-15.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.39%	9.78%	-2.39%

Volatility

CNRG vs. KRBN - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a higher volatility of 15.67% compared to KraneShares Global Carbon ETF (KRBN) at 5.38%. This indicates that CNRG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KRBN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNRG	KRBN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.67%	5.38%	+10.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.25%	16.90%	+10.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.05%	19.17%	+18.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.47%	28.06%	+6.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.98%	28.56%	+7.42%

CNRG vs. KRBN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than KRBN's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. KRBN - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, less than KRBN's 2.02% 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%
KRBN KraneShares Global Carbon ETF	2.02%	1.90%	7.10%	7.60%	22.91%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNRG and KRBN in my portfolio?

CNRG and KRBN have a correlation of 0.21, 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 KRBN?

CNRG has higher volatility (15.67%) compared to KRBN (5.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs KRBN's -36.42%.

Which ETF is better, CNRG or KRBN?

On 5-year performance, KRBN leads with 5.90% vs 2.77% for CNRG. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, KRBN has been the lower-risk option at 5.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNRG or KRBN?

Over the 5-year period, KRBN has performed better with a 5.90% return vs 2.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNRG or KRBN?

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KRBN.

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

KRBN has the higher dividend yield at 2.02%, compared with 1.11% for CNRG.

What is the main difference between CNRG and KRBN?

CNRG is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while KRBN is Commodities. CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while KRBN tracks IHS Markit Global Carbon Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.79% for KRBN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 0.59), 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.