FCG vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FCG (First Trust Natural Gas ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. FCG is passively managed, while RNWZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FCG returned 12.75%/yr vs 12.63%/yr for RNWZ. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

FCG vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCG achieves a 27.71% return, which is significantly higher than RNWZ's 16.28% return.

FCG

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -6.03%
• YTD: 27.71%
• 6M: 20.12%
• 1Y: 32.99%
• 3Y*: 12.75%
• 5Y*: 16.52%
• 10Y*: 4.65%

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: 16.28%
• 6M: 16.86%
• 1Y: 38.19%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCG vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	27.71%	-2.28%	4.16%	2.55%	3.97%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.28%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between FCG and RNWZ is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2022	0.22

The correlation between FCG and RNWZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (1 year) to 0.22 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCG vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCG	RNWZ
Energy	99.2%	3.8%
Technology	0.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	4.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	6.9%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	5.3%
Real Estate	-	3.2%
Utilities	-	41.0%

Return for Risk

FCG vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCG

FCG Risk / Return Rank: 36
FCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
FCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FCG Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
FCG Martin Ratio Rank: 36

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

FCG vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). 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.

	FCG	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.55	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	3.40	-1.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.45	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.54	6.33	-3.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.56	15.60	-10.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCG vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCG and RNWZ, 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

	FCG	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	2.55	-1.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.12	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.11	0.61	-0.72

Drawdowns

FCG vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCG drawdown since its inception was -97.20%, which is greater than RNWZ's maximum drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCG and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCG	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-97.20%	-24.90%	-72.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.07%	-6.06%	-7.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.44%	-24.74%	-4.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.33%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-74.25%	-4.46%	-69.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-65.38%	-7.19%	-58.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.95%	2.45%	+3.50%

Volatility

FCG vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) has a higher volatility of 9.60% compared to TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) at 5.06%. This indicates that FCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCG	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	5.06%	+4.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.15%	11.86%	+8.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.75%	15.06%	+11.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.46%	16.99%	+16.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.30%	16.99%	+21.31%

FCG vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than RNWZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCG vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

FCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, more than RNWZ's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCG First Trust Natural Gas ETF	2.15%	2.86%	2.76%	3.25%	3.04%	1.73%	3.82%	2.87%	1.46%	1.56%	1.70%	4.79%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCG and RNWZ in my portfolio?

FCG and RNWZ have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCG or RNWZ?

FCG has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to RNWZ (5.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCG dropped -97.20% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, FCG or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, FCG leads with 12.75% vs 12.63% for RNWZ. On fees, FCG is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, RNWZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCG or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, FCG has performed better with a 12.75% return vs 12.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCG or RNWZ?

FCG is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCG or RNWZ?

FCG has the higher dividend yield at 2.15%, compared with 1.93% for RNWZ.

What is the main difference between FCG and RNWZ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and TrueShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FCG and 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.24), 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.