FPWR vs. ECLN

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

FPWR (First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF) and ECLN (First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF) are both Utilities Equities funds from First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FPWR returned 12.01%/yr vs 12.01%/yr for ECLN. With a 1.00 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FPWR charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for ECLN.

Performance

FPWR vs. ECLN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

As of year-to-date, both investments have demonstrated similar returns, with FPWR at 12.96% and ECLN at 12.96%.

FPWR

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: -1.04%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 11.36%
• 1Y: 21.65%
• 3Y*: 17.40%
• 5Y*: 12.01%
• 10Y*: —

ECLN

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: -1.04%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 11.36%
• 1Y: 21.65%
• 3Y*: 17.40%
• 5Y*: 12.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

FPWR vs. ECLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF	12.96%	16.78%	22.60%	-3.36%	5.28%	12.26%	8.98%	5.66%
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	12.96%	16.78%	22.60%	-3.36%	5.28%	12.26%	8.98%	5.66%

Correlation

The correlation between FPWR and ECLN is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	1.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2019	1.00

The correlation between FPWR and ECLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 1.00 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FPWR vs. ECLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPWR

FPWR Risk / Return Rank: 73
FPWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FPWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
FPWR Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FPWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FPWR Martin Ratio Rank: 69

ECLN

ECLN Risk / Return Rank: 70
ECLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
ECLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ECLN Omega Ratio Rank: 63
ECLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ECLN Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

FPWR vs. ECLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN). 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.

	FPWR	ECLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.08	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.03	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.36	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	4.33	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.59	11.59	0.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FPWR vs. ECLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPWR Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the ECLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPWR and ECLN, 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

	FPWR	ECLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.08	2.08	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85	0.85	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.68	0.00

Drawdowns

FPWR vs. ECLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPWR drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, roughly equal to the maximum ECLN drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPWR and ECLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPWR	ECLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-32.28%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.02%	-5.02%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	-14.68%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.88%	-19.88%	0.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-2.96%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-4.99%	0.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	1.87%	0.00%

Volatility

FPWR vs. ECLN - Volatility Comparison

First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) have volatilities of 3.75% and 3.75%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPWR	ECLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	3.75%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.12%	8.12%	0.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	10.45%	0.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.22%	14.22%	0.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.40%	17.40%	0.00%

FPWR vs. ECLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPWR has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is lower than ECLN's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPWR vs. ECLN - Dividend Comparison

FPWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, which matches ECLN's 1.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	1.81%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF	1.81%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FPWR and ECLN in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 1.00, FPWR and ECLN move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FPWR or ECLN?

ECLN has higher volatility (3.75%) compared to FPWR (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPWR dropped -32.28% vs ECLN's -32.28%.

Which ETF is better, FPWR or ECLN?

On 5-year performance, ECLN leads with 12.01% vs 12.01% for FPWR. On fees, FPWR is cheaper at 0.96% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPWR or ECLN?

Over the 5-year period, ECLN has performed better with a 12.01% return vs 12.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPWR or ECLN?

FPWR is cheaper with a 0.96% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for ECLN.

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

FPWR and ECLN have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.81%.

What is the main difference between FPWR and ECLN?

Their fees differ too: 0.96% for FPWR and 0.97% for ECLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 2.08), 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.