FRNW vs. TAN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. FRNW is actively managed, while TAN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FRNW returned 10.12%/yr vs -0.64%/yr for TAN. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FRNW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TAN.

Performance

FRNW vs. TAN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). 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 lower than TAN's 43.10% return.

FRNW

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

TAN

• 1D: -2.74%
• 1M: 20.40%
• YTD: 43.10%
• 6M: 48.35%
• 1Y: 112.42%
• 3Y*: -0.64%
• 5Y*: -1.65%
• 10Y*: 13.50%

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

FRNW vs. TAN - 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%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	43.10%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-3.06%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and TAN is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.91

The correlation between FRNW and TAN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRNW vs. TAN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	TAN
Utilities	43.3%	22.1%
Industrials	30.1%	3.3%
Energy	21.0%	57.3%
Technology	5.5%	9.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	3.6%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. TAN — 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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 85
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 72
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. TAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). 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	TAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	3.05	+0.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.06	3.62	+0.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.44	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.47	8.30	-0.83
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.29	20.09	+3.19
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. TAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is comparable to the TAN Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW and TAN, 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	TAN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	3.05	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.04	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.36	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	-0.12	+0.21

Drawdowns

FRNW vs. TAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, smaller than the maximum TAN drawdown of -95.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and TAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	TAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-95.29%	+35.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.58%	-13.62%	+2.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.27%	-64.40%	+19.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-73.95%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.15%	-67.72%	+64.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.33%	-78.51%	+45.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	5.62%	-1.91%

Volatility

FRNW vs. TAN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) is 8.16%, while Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a volatility of 12.15%. This indicates that FRNW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TAN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRNW	TAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.16%	12.15%	-3.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.79%	25.32%	-7.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.61%	37.29%	-11.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.35%	39.74%	-11.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.35%	37.98%	-9.63%

FRNW vs. TAN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRNW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than TAN's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRNW vs. TAN - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, while TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRNW and TAN in my portfolio?

FRNW and TAN have a correlation of 0.85, 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 TAN?

TAN has higher volatility (12.15%) compared to FRNW (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs TAN's -95.29%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or TAN?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 10.12% vs -0.64% for TAN. 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 TAN?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 10.12% return vs -0.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or TAN?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between FRNW and TAN?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FRNW and 0.69% for TAN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 3.05), 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.