ECLN vs. PBW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ECLN (First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF) and PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ECLN is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while PBW is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX). ECLN is actively managed, while PBW is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ECLN returned 12.01%/yr vs -13.40%/yr for PBW. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ECLN charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for PBW.

Performance

ECLN vs. PBW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECLN achieves a 12.96% return, which is significantly lower than PBW's 28.31% return.

ECLN

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: -1.81%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 12.92%
• 1Y: 19.73%
• 3Y*: 17.40%
• 5Y*: 12.01%
• 10Y*: —

PBW

• 1D: -5.58%
• 1M: -8.98%
• YTD: 28.31%
• 6M: 22.11%
• 1Y: 107.61%
• 3Y*: 3.84%
• 5Y*: -13.40%
• 10Y*: 9.92%

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

ECLN vs. PBW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	12.96%	16.78%	22.60%	-3.36%	5.28%	12.26%	8.98%	5.66%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	28.31%	53.96%	-30.77%	-20.03%	-44.55%	-29.86%	204.82%	15.88%

Correlation

The correlation between ECLN and PBW is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2019	0.38

The correlation between ECLN and PBW shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.41 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ECLN vs. PBW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECLN	PBW
Utilities	76.4%	6.5%
Energy	16.3%	11.2%
Industrials	6.8%	34.2%
Technology	0.5%	14.4%
Basic Materials	-	16.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	14.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.1%
Financial Services	-	1.5%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ECLN vs. PBW — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECLN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 75
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 63
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

ECLN vs. PBW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW). 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.

	ECLN	PBW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.55	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	2.89	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.36	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	5.09	-0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.59	13.07	-1.48

ECLN vs. PBW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the PBW Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECLN and PBW, 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

ECLN vs. PBW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECLN drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, smaller than the maximum PBW drawdown of -89.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECLN and PBW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECLN	PBW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-89.02%	+56.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.02%	-21.24%	+16.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	-68.04%	+53.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.88%	-84.50%	+64.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-89.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-67.66%	+64.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-62.90%	+57.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	8.26%	-6.39%

Volatility

ECLN vs. PBW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) is 3.75%, while Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a volatility of 17.93%. This indicates that ECLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECLN	PBW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	17.93%	-14.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.12%	31.32%	-23.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	42.50%	-32.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.22%	43.39%	-29.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.39%	39.02%	-21.63%

ECLN vs. PBW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECLN has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than PBW's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECLN vs. PBW - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	1.81%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	1.21%	0.79%	2.84%	3.68%	4.21%	1.71%	0.44%	1.45%	2.04%	1.28%	2.68%	1.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECLN and PBW in my portfolio?

ECLN and PBW have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECLN or PBW?

PBW has higher volatility (17.93%) compared to ECLN (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECLN dropped -32.28% vs PBW's -89.02%.

Which ETF is better, ECLN or PBW?

On 5-year performance, ECLN leads with 12.01% vs -13.40% for PBW. On fees, PBW is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, ECLN has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECLN or PBW?

Over the 5-year period, ECLN has performed better with a 12.01% return vs -13.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECLN or PBW?

PBW is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for ECLN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECLN or PBW?

ECLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 1.21% for PBW.

What is the main difference between ECLN and PBW?

ECLN is categorized as Utilities Equities, while PBW is Small Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for ECLN and 0.61% for PBW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.08), 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.