FRNW vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FRNW returned 62.88% vs 55.12% for CCNR. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.39% expense ratio.

Performance

FRNW vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FRNW achieves a 23.12% return, which is significantly higher than CCNR's 21.92% return.

FRNW

• 1D: 1.22%
• 1M: -4.62%
• YTD: 23.12%
• 6M: 22.47%
• 1Y: 62.88%
• 3Y*: 6.70%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CCNR

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: -3.42%
• YTD: 21.92%
• 6M: 23.45%
• 1Y: 55.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FRNW vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	23.12%	53.20%	-9.74%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	21.92%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and CCNR is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.65

The correlation between FRNW and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRNW vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	CCNR
Utilities	42.5%	9.7%
Industrials	28.7%	7.3%
Energy	22.5%	41.2%
Technology	6.0%	0.3%
Basic Materials	-	33.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.7%
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 82
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 73
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 86

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 93
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FRNW	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	3.05	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	3.71	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.51	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.48	7.25	-2.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.67	25.70	-10.03

FRNW vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW and CCNR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FRNW vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-20.06%	-39.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.20%	-7.85%	-6.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.09%	-5.21%	-5.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.17%	-3.58%	-29.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.05%	2.21%	+1.84%

Volatility

FRNW vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a higher volatility of 10.63% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 6.78%. This indicates that FRNW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRNW	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	6.78%	+3.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.61%	13.94%	+5.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.92%	18.66%	+8.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.52%	20.14%	+8.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.52%	20.14%	+8.38%

FRNW vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FRNW and CCNR have an expense ratio of 0.39%.

Dividends

FRNW vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, less than CCNR's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.86%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.02%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRNW and CCNR in my portfolio?

FRNW and CCNR have a correlation of 0.61, 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 CCNR?

FRNW has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to CCNR (6.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, FRNW leads with 62.88% vs 55.12% for CCNR. Both ETFs have the same 0.39% expense ratio. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRNW or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 62.88% return vs 55.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or CCNR?

FRNW and CCNR have the same expense ratio: 0.39% per year.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 1.02% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between FRNW and CCNR?

FRNW is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while CCNR is Natural Resources. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and ALPS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.05 vs 2.36), 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.