PBE vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

PBE (Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBE is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the Dynamic Biotech & Genome Intellidex Index (AMEX), while FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. PBE is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PBE returned 10.91%/yr vs 6.49%/yr for FRNW. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBE charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

PBE vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF (PBE) 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, PBE achieves a 3.32% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 23.62% return.

PBE

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: 4.85%
• YTD: 3.32%
• 6M: 5.17%
• 1Y: 34.13%
• 3Y*: 10.91%
• 5Y*: 2.31%
• 10Y*: 8.90%

FRNW

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -4.24%
• YTD: 23.62%
• 6M: 23.50%
• 1Y: 63.53%
• 3Y*: 6.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBE vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PBE Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF	3.32%	24.84%	1.10%	3.71%	-10.83%	-3.03%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	23.62%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between PBE and FRNW is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.51

The correlation between PBE and FRNW shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (1 year) to 0.51 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PBE vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBE	FRNW
Healthcare	99.9%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	22.5%
Industrials	-	28.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	42.5%

Return for Risk

PBE vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBE

PBE Risk / Return Rank: 58
PBE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
PBE Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
PBE Omega Ratio Rank: 53
PBE Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PBE Martin Ratio Rank: 52

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 79
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

PBE vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF (PBE) 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.

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.

	PBE	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	2.37	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.68	2.98	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.37	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	4.50	-1.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.21	15.55	-7.34

PBE vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBE Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBE 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.

Drawdowns

PBE vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBE drawdown since its inception was -45.69%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBE and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBE	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.69%	-59.37%	+13.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.73%	-14.20%	+2.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.43%	-45.14%	+22.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.71%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	-10.73%	+9.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.21%	-33.15%	+16.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.17%	4.10%	+0.07%

Volatility

PBE vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF (PBE) is 6.04%, while Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a volatility of 10.63%. This indicates that PBE 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

	PBE	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.04%	10.63%	-4.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.67%	19.59%	-5.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.01%	26.98%	-7.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.48%	28.51%	-6.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.91%	28.51%	-3.60%

PBE vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBE has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBE vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

PBE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, which matches FRNW's 1.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.02%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBE Invesco Dynamic Biotechnology & Genome ETF	1.02%	1.00%	0.05%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.57%	0.38%	1.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBE and FRNW in my portfolio?

PBE and FRNW have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBE or FRNW?

FRNW has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to PBE (6.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBE dropped -45.69% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, PBE or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, PBE leads with 10.91% vs 6.49% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PBE has been the lower-risk option at 6.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBE or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, PBE has performed better with a 10.91% return vs 6.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBE or FRNW?

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

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

PBE and FRNW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.02%.

What is the main difference between PBE and FRNW?

PBE is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while FRNW is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for PBE and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.81), 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.