EIPX vs. PWER

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EIPX is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by First Trust, while PWER is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Macquarie. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EIPX returned 27.62% vs 49.15% for PWER. Their 0.60 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EIPX charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

EIPX vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EIPX having a 22.83% return and PWER slightly higher at 23.61%.

EIPX

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: 2.53%
• 6M: 11.29%
• YTD: 22.83%
• 1Y: 27.62%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.60%

PWER

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 5.97%
• 6M: 9.15%
• YTD: 23.61%
• 1Y: 49.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.57%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	$1.61M	$1.93M	$1.30M
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	$32.43K	$20.22K	$31.27K

EIPX vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	22.83%	11.44%	19.11%	0.86%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	23.61%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.35%

Correlation

The correlation between EIPX and PWER is 0.42, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2023	0.60

The correlation between EIPX and PWER shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.60 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EIPX vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EIPX	PWER
Energy	68.3%	36.7%
Utilities	27.0%	2.0%
Industrials	4.5%	14.8%
Technology	0.3%	4.7%
Basic Materials	-	41.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EIPX vs. PWER — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 90
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 86
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 81
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 82
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 72

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EIPX vs. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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.

	EIPX	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.43	2.29	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.47	2.86	+0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.39	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.37	3.61	+1.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.05	10.16	+4.89

EIPX vs. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIPX Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIPX and PWER, 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

EIPX vs. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIPX drawdown since its inception was -15.43%, smaller than the maximum PWER drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIPX and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	EIPX	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.43%	-29.68%	+14.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.17%	-13.70%	+8.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.47%	-6.83%	+4.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-6.47%	+4.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	4.85%	-3.01%

Volatility

EIPX vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX) is 3.19%, while Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) has a volatility of 4.93%. This indicates that EIPX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EIPX	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.19%	4.93%	-1.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.51%	16.66%	-8.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.45%	21.60%	-10.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.94%	23.53%	-8.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.94%	23.53%	-8.59%

EIPX vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

EIPX has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

EIPX vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

EIPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.73%, more than PWER's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.73%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	0.77%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EIPX and PWER in my portfolio?

EIPX and PWER have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EIPX or PWER?

PWER has higher volatility (4.93%) compared to EIPX (3.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EIPX dropped -15.43% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, EIPX or PWER?

On 1-year performance, PWER leads with 49.15% vs 27.62% for EIPX. On fees, PWER is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, EIPX has been the lower-risk option at 3.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EIPX or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, PWER has performed better with a 49.15% return vs 27.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EIPX or PWER?

PWER is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EIPX or PWER?

EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.73%, compared with 0.77% for PWER.

What is the main difference between EIPX and PWER?

EIPX is categorized as Energy Equities, while PWER is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for EIPX and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EIPX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.29), 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.