FPWR vs. ZAP

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

FPWR (First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both Utilities Equities funds. FPWR is actively managed, while ZAP is passively managed. Over the past year, FPWR returned 21.65% vs 30.55% for ZAP. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FPWR charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for ZAP.

Performance

FPWR vs. ZAP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FPWR achieves a 12.96% return, which is significantly lower than ZAP's 15.07% return.

FPWR

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

ZAP

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -3.20%
• YTD: 15.07%
• 6M: 13.42%
• 1Y: 30.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FPWR vs. ZAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF	12.96%	16.78%	1.79%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	15.07%	21.84%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between FPWR and ZAP is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.83

The correlation between FPWR and ZAP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FPWR vs. ZAP — 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

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 66
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 59
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. ZAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). 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	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.03	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	2.76	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.35	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	4.24	+0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.59	10.78	+0.80
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. ZAP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPWR Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the ZAP Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPWR and ZAP, 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	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.08	2.03	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	1.62	-0.95

Drawdowns

FPWR vs. ZAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPWR drawdown since its inception was -32.28%, which is greater than ZAP's maximum drawdown of -12.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPWR and ZAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPWR	ZAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.28%	-12.38%	-19.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.02%	-7.23%	+2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-4.17%	+1.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-2.58%	-2.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.87%	2.84%	-0.97%

Volatility

FPWR vs. ZAP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) is 3.75%, while Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) has a volatility of 6.31%. This indicates that FPWR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZAP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPWR	ZAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	6.31%	-2.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.12%	11.74%	-3.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	15.09%	-4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.22%	16.88%	-2.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.40%	16.88%	+0.52%

FPWR vs. ZAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPWR has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than ZAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPWR vs. ZAP - Dividend Comparison

FPWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, more than ZAP's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FPWR First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF	1.81%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.55%	1.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FPWR and ZAP in my portfolio?

FPWR and ZAP have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FPWR or ZAP?

ZAP has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to FPWR (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPWR dropped -32.28% vs ZAP's -12.38%.

Which ETF is better, FPWR or ZAP?

On 1-year performance, ZAP leads with 30.55% vs 21.65% for FPWR. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FPWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPWR or ZAP?

Over the 1-year period, ZAP has performed better with a 30.55% return vs 21.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPWR or ZAP?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for FPWR.

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

FPWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 1.55% for ZAP.

What is the main difference between FPWR and ZAP?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for FPWR and 0.50% for ZAP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FPWR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 2.03), 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.