FRNW vs. ACES

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. FRNW is actively managed, while ACES is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FRNW returned 10.12%/yr vs -1.21%/yr for ACES. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FRNW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.

Performance

FRNW vs. ACES - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FRNW achieves a 34.11% return, which is significantly higher than ACES's 28.72% return.

FRNW

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 7.89%
• YTD: 34.11%
• 6M: 34.18%
• 1Y: 86.03%
• 3Y*: 10.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACES

• 1D: -2.84%
• 1M: 17.92%
• YTD: 28.72%
• 6M: 27.36%
• 1Y: 69.96%
• 3Y*: -1.21%
• 5Y*: -8.73%
• 10Y*: —

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

FRNW vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	28.72%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-2.45%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and ACES is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.88

The correlation between FRNW and ACES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRNW vs. ACES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	ACES
Utilities	43.3%	25.5%
Industrials	30.1%	20.3%
Energy	21.0%	0.5%
Technology	5.5%	24.8%
Basic Materials	-	9.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.2%
Financial Services	-	5.3%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 90
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 62
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

FRNW vs. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) 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.

	FRNW	ACES	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	2.18	+1.21
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.06	2.77	+1.29
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.33	+0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.47	4.03	+3.44
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.29	10.16	+13.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FRNW vs. ACES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is higher than the ACES Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW and ACES, 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

	FRNW	ACES	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	2.18	+1.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	0.22	-0.13

Drawdowns

FRNW vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, smaller than the maximum ACES drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and ACES.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	ACES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-79.05%	+19.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.58%	-17.44%	+5.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.27%	-58.68%	+13.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-74.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.15%	-56.41%	+53.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.33%	-38.87%	+5.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	6.91%	-3.20%

Volatility

FRNW vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) is 8.16%, while ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a volatility of 9.99%. This indicates that FRNW 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.

Volatility by Period

	FRNW	ACES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.16%	9.99%	-1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.79%	22.55%	-4.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.61%	32.42%	-6.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.35%	36.17%	-7.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.35%	35.59%	-7.24%

FRNW vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRNW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRNW vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, more than ACES's 0.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.54%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRNW and ACES in my portfolio?

FRNW and ACES have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FRNW or ACES?

ACES has higher volatility (9.99%) compared to FRNW (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs ACES's -79.05%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or ACES?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 10.12% vs -1.21% for ACES. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 8.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRNW or ACES?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 10.12% return vs -1.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or ACES?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FRNW or ACES?

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.54% for ACES.

What is the main difference between FRNW and ACES?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FRNW and 0.55% for ACES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 2.18), 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.