PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EFRA vs. RNRG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EFRA vs. RNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFRA achieves a 4.54% return, which is significantly lower than RNRG's 17.66% return.


EFRA

1D
0.66%
1M
-2.15%
YTD
4.54%
6M
5.64%
1Y
10.48%
3Y*
11.06%
5Y*
10Y*

RNRG

1D
-1.39%
1M
0.86%
YTD
17.66%
6M
17.51%
1Y
42.65%
3Y*
4.44%
5Y*
-2.70%
10Y*
4.47%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFRA vs. RNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
EFRA
iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF
4.54%13.76%8.09%14.49%7.48%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF
17.66%29.61%-22.00%-12.82%1.01%

Correlation

The correlation between EFRA and RNRG is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.51

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2022

0.59

The correlation between EFRA and RNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFRA vs. RNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EFRA
RNRG

Industrials

61.8%
3.0%

Utilities

24.1%
92.8%

Consumer Cyclical

6.3%

-

Basic Materials

4.4%
2.1%

Technology

2.7%
2.2%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

EFRA
61.8%
RNRG
3.0%

Utilities

EFRA
24.1%
RNRG
92.8%

Consumer Cyclical

EFRA
6.3%
RNRG

-

Basic Materials

EFRA
4.4%
RNRG
2.1%

Technology

EFRA
2.7%
RNRG
2.2%

Communication Services

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Consumer Defensive

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Energy

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Financial Services

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Healthcare

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Real Estate

EFRA

-

RNRG

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EFRA vs. RNRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFRA
EFRA Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
EFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
EFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank

RNRG
RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EFRA vs. RNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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.


EFRARNRGDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.75

2.72

-1.97

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.16

3.58

-2.42

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.45

-0.31

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.92

7.20

-6.29

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

2.69

19.98

-17.30

EFRA vs. RNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFRA Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is lower than the RNRG Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFRA and RNRG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EFRARNRGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.75

2.72

-1.97

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.23

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.89

0.07

+0.82

Drawdowns

EFRA vs. RNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFRA drawdown since its inception was -16.25%, smaller than the maximum RNRG drawdown of -58.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFRA and RNRG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EFRARNRGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.25%

-58.79%

+42.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.20%

-5.95%

-5.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.25%

-35.23%

+18.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-52.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-58.79%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.36%

-30.37%

+23.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.63%

-24.45%

+20.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.83%

2.14%

+1.69%

Volatility

EFRA vs. RNRG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) is 4.42%, while Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) has a volatility of 5.55%. This indicates that EFRA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EFRARNRGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.42%

5.55%

-1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.21%

12.10%

-0.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.02%

15.77%

-1.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.52%

20.10%

-4.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.52%

19.67%

-4.15%

EFRA vs. RNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFRA has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than RNRG's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

EFRA vs. RNRG - Dividend Comparison

EFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.15%, more than RNRG's 1.28% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFRA
iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF
4.15%4.34%3.79%1.85%0.14%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF
1.28%1.50%1.48%1.44%1.15%1.10%3.16%2.97%5.22%4.14%5.02%3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


EFRA and RNRG have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RNRG has higher volatility (5.55%) compared to EFRA (4.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFRA dropped -16.25% vs RNRG's -58.79%.

On 3-year performance, EFRA leads with 11.06% vs 4.44% for RNRG. On fees, EFRA is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, EFRA has been the lower-risk option at 4.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, EFRA has performed better with a 11.06% return vs 4.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EFRA is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RNRG.

EFRA has the higher dividend yield at 4.15%, compared with 1.28% for RNRG.

EFRA is categorized as Industrials Equities, while RNRG is Alternative Energy Equities. EFRA tracks FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index, while RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EFRA and 0.65% for RNRG.

RNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 0.75), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EFRA and RNRG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer