EQL vs. ACES
EQL (ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EQL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the NYSE Equal Sector Weight Index, while ACES is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQL returned 10.49%/yr vs -8.73%/yr for ACES. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EQL charges 0.27%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.
Performance
EQL vs. ACES - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EQL achieves a 8.83% return, which is significantly lower than ACES's 28.72% return.
EQL
- 1D
- -0.16%
- 1M
- 0.96%
- YTD
- 8.83%
- 6M
- 9.12%
- 1Y
- 18.80%
- 3Y*
- 16.48%
- 5Y*
- 10.49%
- 10Y*
- 12.47%
ACES
- 1D
- -2.84%
- 1M
- 17.92%
- YTD
- 28.72%
- 6M
- 27.36%
- 1Y
- 69.96%
- 3Y*
- -1.21%
- 5Y*
- -8.73%
- 10Y*
- —
EQL vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF | 8.83% | 13.09% | 16.44% | 16.87% | -10.72% | 29.32% | 10.87% | 27.87% | -7.25% |
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF | 28.72% | 25.44% | -26.71% | -20.04% | -28.44% | -19.44% | 140.33% | 51.70% | -9.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between EQL and ACES is 0.56, 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2018 | 0.62 |
The correlation between EQL and ACES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.
EQL vs. ACES - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EQL
ACES
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Real Estate
-
Communication Services
-
Utilities
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Industrials
Energy
Healthcare
-
Basic Materials
Technology
EQL
ACES
Consumer Cyclical
EQL
ACES
Real Estate
EQL
ACES
-
Communication Services
EQL
ACES
-
Utilities
EQL
ACES
Financial Services
EQL
ACES
Consumer Defensive
EQL
ACES
Industrials
EQL
ACES
Energy
EQL
ACES
Healthcare
EQL
ACES
-
Basic Materials
EQL
ACES
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
EQL vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank
EQL
ACES
EQL vs. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). 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.
| EQL | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.33 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.05 | 4.03 | -0.98 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.93 | 10.16 | +1.77 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EQL | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.02 | 2.18 | -0.15 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.72 | -0.24 | +0.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.76 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.85 | 0.22 | +0.64 |
Drawdowns
EQL vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EQL drawdown since its inception was -35.65%, smaller than the maximum ACES drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQL and ACES.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EQL | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.65% | -79.05% | +43.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.19% | -17.44% | +11.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.07% | -58.68% | +43.61% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.24% | -74.44% | +55.20% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.65% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.00% | -56.41% | +55.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.26% | -38.87% | +35.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.58% | 6.91% | -5.33% |
Volatility
EQL vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) is 2.21%, while ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a volatility of 9.99%. This indicates that EQL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACES based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EQL | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.21% | 9.99% | -7.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.82% | 22.55% | -15.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.34% | 32.42% | -23.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.55% | 36.17% | -21.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.54% | 35.59% | -19.05% |
EQL vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison
EQL has a 0.27% expense ratio, which is lower than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
EQL vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison
EQL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, more than ACES's 0.54% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF | 0.54% | 0.70% | 1.10% | 1.44% | 1.08% | 0.71% | 0.56% | 1.79% | 0.34% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF | 1.62% | 1.73% | 1.78% | 1.96% | 2.14% | 1.69% | 2.29% | 1.95% | 2.39% | 1.97% | 2.89% | 2.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EQL and ACES have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ACES has higher volatility (9.99%) compared to EQL (2.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQL dropped -35.65% vs ACES's -79.05%.
On 5-year performance, EQL leads with 10.49% vs -8.73% for ACES. On fees, EQL is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, EQL has been the lower-risk option at 2.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, EQL has performed better with a 10.49% return vs -8.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EQL is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.
EQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.54% for ACES.
EQL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while ACES is Alternative Energy Equities. EQL tracks NYSE Equal Sector Weight Index, while ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.27% for EQL and 0.55% for ACES.
ACES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 2.02), 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.
Find the right allocation for EQL and ACES
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