LCTD vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCTD (BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCTD returned 14.96%/yr vs 10.12%/yr for FRNW. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCTD charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

LCTD vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTD achieves a 6.33% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 34.11% return.

LCTD

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 1.69%
• YTD: 6.33%
• 6M: 8.97%
• 1Y: 19.28%
• 3Y*: 14.96%
• 5Y*: 6.77%
• 10Y*: —

FRNW

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

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

LCTD vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LCTD BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	6.33%	30.42%	3.14%	17.10%	-16.16%	2.81%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTD and FRNW is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.66

The correlation between LCTD and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCTD vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCTD	FRNW
Financial Services	26.7%	-
Industrials	19.5%	30.1%
Healthcare	9.3%	-
Technology	9.1%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	-
Basic Materials	5.8%	-
Energy	5.8%	21.0%
Utilities	4.0%	43.3%
Communication Services	3.5%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

LCTD vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTD

LCTD Risk / Return Rank: 37
LCTD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
LCTD Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Omega Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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

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.

LCTD vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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.

	LCTD	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	3.39	-2.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	4.06	-2.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.51	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	7.47	-5.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.39	23.29	-16.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCTD vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTD Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 3.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTD and FRNW, 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

	LCTD	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33	3.39	-2.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.09	+0.39

Drawdowns

LCTD vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTD drawdown since its inception was -29.82%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTD and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCTD	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.82%	-59.37%	+29.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.92%	-11.58%	+0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.59%	-45.27%	+31.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.23%	-3.15%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.79%	-33.33%	+26.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.03%	3.71%	-0.68%

Volatility

LCTD vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD) is 4.31%, while Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a volatility of 8.16%. This indicates that LCTD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCTD	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	8.16%	-3.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.99%	17.79%	-5.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.55%	25.61%	-11.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	28.35%	-12.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.06%	28.35%	-12.29%

LCTD vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTD has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCTD vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

LCTD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.40%, more than FRNW's 0.94% 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%
LCTD BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	3.40%	3.61%	3.74%	3.16%	3.52%	2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCTD and FRNW in my portfolio?

LCTD and FRNW have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCTD or FRNW?

FRNW has higher volatility (8.16%) compared to LCTD (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTD dropped -29.82% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, LCTD or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, LCTD leads with 14.96% vs 10.12% for FRNW. On fees, LCTD is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LCTD has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCTD or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, LCTD has performed better with a 14.96% return vs 10.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCTD or FRNW?

LCTD is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FRNW.

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

LCTD has the higher dividend yield at 3.40%, compared with 0.94% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between LCTD and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LCTD and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 1.33), 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.