ECLN vs. ZAP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ECLN (First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both Utilities Equities funds. ECLN is actively managed, while ZAP is passively managed. Over the past year, ECLN returned 19.15% vs 28.84% for ZAP. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ECLN charges 0.97%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for ZAP.

Performance

ECLN vs. ZAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECLN achieves a 12.15% return, which is significantly lower than ZAP's 15.14% return.

ECLN

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -2.95%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 6M: 10.16%
• 1Y: 19.15%
• 3Y*: 17.15%
• 5Y*: 11.85%
• 10Y*: —

ZAP

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -3.98%
• YTD: 15.14%
• 6M: 13.19%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ECLN vs. ZAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	12.15%	16.78%	1.79%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	15.14%	21.84%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between ECLN and ZAP is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.83

The correlation between ECLN and ZAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ECLN vs. ZAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECLN

ECLN Risk / Return Rank: 59
ECLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
ECLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ECLN Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ECLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ECLN Martin Ratio Rank: 59

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 60
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 52
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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. ZAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). 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.

	ECLN	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.92	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.62	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.33	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.83	4.01	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.36	10.25	+0.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ECLN vs. ZAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the ZAP Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECLN and ZAP, 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

	ECLN	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.83	1.92	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	1.63	-0.96

Drawdowns

ECLN vs. ZAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECLN drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, which is greater than ZAP's maximum drawdown of -12.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECLN and ZAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECLN	ZAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-12.38%	-19.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.02%	-7.23%	+2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.65%	-4.11%	+0.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-2.57%	-2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	2.83%	-0.97%

Volatility

ECLN vs. ZAP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) is 3.85%, while Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) has a volatility of 6.28%. This indicates that ECLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECLN	ZAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.85%	6.28%	-2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.15%	11.74%	-3.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.51%	15.13%	-4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.22%	16.91%	-2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.41%	16.91%	+0.50%

ECLN vs. ZAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECLN has a 0.97% expense ratio, which is higher than ZAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECLN vs. ZAP - Dividend Comparison

ECLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, more than ZAP's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	1.83%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.55%	1.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECLN and ZAP in my portfolio?

ECLN and ZAP have a correlation of 0.80, 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 ZAP?

ZAP has higher volatility (6.28%) compared to ECLN (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECLN dropped -32.28% vs ZAP's -12.38%.

Which ETF is better, ECLN or ZAP?

On 1-year performance, ZAP leads with 28.84% vs 19.15% for ECLN. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ECLN has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECLN or ZAP?

Over the 1-year period, ZAP has performed better with a 28.84% return vs 19.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECLN or ZAP?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for ECLN.

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

ECLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 1.55% for ZAP.

What is the main difference between ECLN and ZAP?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.97% for ECLN and 0.50% for ZAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.83), 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.