FRNW vs. VCLN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and VCLN (Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while VCLN is a Sustainable fund actively managed by Virtus Investment Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FRNW returned 10.12%/yr vs 20.62%/yr for VCLN. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FRNW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for VCLN.

Performance

FRNW vs. VCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN). 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 VCLN's 39.16% return.

FRNW

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

VCLN

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: 11.34%
• YTD: 39.16%
• 6M: 37.23%
• 1Y: 95.86%
• 3Y*: 20.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FRNW vs. VCLN - 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%
VCLN Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF	39.16%	55.75%	-6.69%	-17.54%	-7.87%	-3.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and VCLN is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.86

Over the past year, the correlation between FRNW and VCLN has dropped to 0.62 - well below their long-term average of 0.86, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FRNW vs. VCLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	VCLN
Utilities	43.3%	39.8%
Industrials	30.1%	36.7%
Energy	21.0%	1.1%
Technology	5.5%	22.4%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. VCLN — 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

VCLN

VCLN Risk / Return Rank: 90
VCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
VCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
VCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 83
VCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
VCLN 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. VCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) and Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN). 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	VCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	3.30	+0.09
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.06	4.05	+0.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.51	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.47	7.66	-0.19
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.29	29.03	-5.75
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. VCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is comparable to the VCLN Sharpe Ratio of 3.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW and VCLN, 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	VCLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	3.30	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	0.30	-0.21

Drawdowns

FRNW vs. VCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, which is greater than VCLN's maximum drawdown of -45.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and VCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	VCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-45.66%	-13.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.58%	-12.58%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.27%	-29.25%	-16.02%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.15%	-1.16%	-1.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.33%	-24.09%	-9.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	3.31%	+0.40%

Volatility

FRNW vs. VCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) is 8.16%, while Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that FRNW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VCLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRNW	VCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.16%	9.04%	-0.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.79%	20.11%	-2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.61%	29.22%	-3.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.35%	27.43%	+0.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.35%	27.43%	+0.92%

FRNW vs. VCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRNW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than VCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRNW vs. VCLN - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, less than VCLN's 1.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%
VCLN Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF	1.45%	2.01%	1.16%	1.14%	0.65%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRNW and VCLN in my portfolio?

FRNW and VCLN have a correlation of 0.62, 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 VCLN?

VCLN has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to FRNW (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs VCLN's -45.66%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or VCLN?

On 3-year performance, VCLN leads with 20.62% vs 10.12% for FRNW. 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 VCLN?

Over the 3-year period, VCLN has performed better with a 20.62% return vs 10.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or VCLN?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for VCLN.

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

VCLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.94% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between FRNW and VCLN?

FRNW is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while VCLN is Sustainable. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Virtus Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FRNW and 0.59% for VCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 3.30), 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.