HAP vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. HAP is passively managed, while RNWZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HAP returned 18.93%/yr vs 12.63%/yr for RNWZ. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HAP charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

HAP vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HAP achieves a 21.49% return, which is significantly higher than RNWZ's 16.28% return.

HAP

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.64%
• YTD: 21.49%
• 6M: 23.70%
• 1Y: 46.66%
• 3Y*: 18.93%
• 5Y*: 11.51%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: 16.28%
• 6M: 16.86%
• 1Y: 38.19%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HAP vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	21.49%	34.91%	-4.08%	2.46%	0.32%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.28%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between HAP and RNWZ is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2022	0.57

The correlation between HAP and RNWZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

HAP vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HAP	RNWZ
Basic Materials	36.7%	4.5%
Energy	32.3%	3.8%
Industrials	10.2%	5.3%
Utilities	9.8%	41.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	-
Healthcare	2.8%	-
Technology	0.9%	-
Real Estate	0.4%	3.2%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	6.9%

Return for Risk

HAP vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 89
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 88
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

HAP vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). 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.

	HAP	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.14	2.55	+0.60
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.01	3.40	+0.61
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.45	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.65	6.33	-0.69
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.05	15.60	+7.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HAP vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HAP Sharpe Ratio is 3.14, which is comparable to the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HAP and RNWZ, 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

	HAP	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.14	2.55	+0.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	0.61	-0.35

Drawdowns

HAP vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HAP drawdown since its inception was -50.73%, which is greater than RNWZ's maximum drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HAP and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	HAP	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.73%	-24.90%	-25.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.31%	-6.06%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.92%	-24.74%	+7.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.95%	-4.46%	+2.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.03%	-7.19%	-4.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	2.45%	-0.42%

Volatility

HAP vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) is 4.37%, while TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) has a volatility of 5.06%. This indicates that HAP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RNWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HAP	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.37%	5.06%	-0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.24%	11.86%	+0.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.91%	15.06%	-0.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.24%	16.99%	+1.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.74%	16.99%	+2.75%

HAP vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

HAP has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than RNWZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

HAP vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

HAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.87%, less than RNWZ's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.87%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HAP and RNWZ in my portfolio?

HAP and RNWZ have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HAP or RNWZ?

RNWZ has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to HAP (4.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HAP dropped -50.73% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, HAP or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, HAP leads with 18.93% vs 12.63% for RNWZ. On fees, HAP is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, HAP has been the lower-risk option at 4.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HAP or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, HAP has performed better with a 18.93% return vs 12.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HAP or RNWZ?

HAP is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HAP or RNWZ?

RNWZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 1.87% for HAP.

What is the main difference between HAP and RNWZ?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and TrueShares. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for HAP and 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.14 vs 2.55), 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.