CNRG vs. TAN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index while TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNRG returned 3.85%/yr vs -6.08%/yr for TAN. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TAN.

Performance

CNRG vs. TAN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) 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, CNRG achieves a 29.13% return, which is significantly higher than TAN's 24.41% return.

CNRG

• 1D: 1.91%
• 1M: -0.57%
• YTD: 29.13%
• 6M: 23.65%
• 1Y: 106.10%
• 3Y*: 13.97%
• 5Y*: 3.85%
• 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)

CNRG vs. TAN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	29.13%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-15.68%	138.35%	63.26%	-2.05%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	24.41%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	233.96%	66.53%	-1.27%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG 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	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2018	0.89

The correlation between CNRG and TAN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNRG vs. TAN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNRG	TAN
Industrials	37.1%	2.3%
Utilities	27.1%	29.2%
Energy	23.5%	57.3%
Technology	10.6%	65.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	3.5%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. TAN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 81
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

CNRG vs. TAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CNRG	TAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	2.38	+0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	3.03	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.36	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.92	4.35	+1.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.49	13.98	+0.52

CNRG vs. TAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 2.83, which is comparable to the TAN Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG 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

CNRG vs. TAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, smaller than the maximum TAN drawdown of -95.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and TAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNRG	TAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.49%	-95.29%	+26.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.01%	-20.94%	+2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.77%	-64.40%	+15.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.17%	-73.95%	+14.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.03%	-71.94%	+55.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.73%	-78.47%	+46.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.35%	6.51%	+0.84%

Volatility

CNRG vs. TAN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) is 15.44%, while Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a volatility of 16.46%. This indicates that CNRG 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

	CNRG	TAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.44%	16.46%	-1.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.85%	28.51%	-1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.81%	38.32%	-0.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.41%	40.11%	-5.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.95%	38.17%	-2.22%

CNRG vs. TAN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than TAN's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. TAN - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, while TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.21%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%	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 CNRG and TAN in my portfolio?

CNRG 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, CNRG or TAN?

TAN has higher volatility (16.46%) compared to CNRG (15.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs TAN's -95.29%.

Which ETF is better, CNRG or TAN?

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 3.85% vs -6.08% for TAN. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, CNRG has been the lower-risk option at 15.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNRG or TAN?

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 3.85% return vs -6.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNRG or TAN?

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between CNRG and TAN?

CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.69% for TAN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.38), 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.