PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PBW vs. CNRG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PBW vs. CNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBW achieves a 48.64% return, which is significantly higher than CNRG's 36.68% return.


PBW

1D
-3.49%
1M
18.16%
YTD
48.64%
6M
46.91%
1Y
151.19%
3Y*
8.19%
5Y*
-10.05%
10Y*
11.06%

CNRG

1D
-2.81%
1M
18.72%
YTD
36.68%
6M
32.67%
1Y
117.30%
3Y*
15.27%
5Y*
5.21%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PBW vs. CNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
48.64%53.96%-30.77%-20.03%-44.55%-29.86%204.82%62.58%-5.45%
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
36.68%50.23%-14.48%-11.55%-7.98%-15.68%138.35%63.26%-2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and CNRG is 0.89, 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

0.89

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.91

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.92

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2018

0.91

The correlation between PBW and CNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. CNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PBW
CNRG

Industrials

34.3%
41.2%

Basic Materials

16.4%

-

Technology

14.3%
29.1%

Consumer Cyclical

13.9%
1.6%

Energy

12.3%
3.0%

Utilities

6.3%
25.2%

Financial Services

1.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.1%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

PBW
34.3%
CNRG
41.2%

Basic Materials

PBW
16.4%
CNRG

-

Technology

PBW
14.3%
CNRG
29.1%

Consumer Cyclical

PBW
13.9%
CNRG
1.6%

Energy

PBW
12.3%
CNRG
3.0%

Utilities

PBW
6.3%
CNRG
25.2%

Financial Services

PBW
1.4%
CNRG

-

Consumer Defensive

PBW
1.1%
CNRG

-

Communication Services

PBW

-

CNRG

-

Healthcare

PBW

-

CNRG

-

Real Estate

PBW

-

CNRG

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

PBW vs. CNRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBW
PBW Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

CNRG
CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PBW vs. CNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). 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.


PBWCNRGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.46

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.16

6.65

+0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.88

17.06

+2.82

PBW vs. CNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 3.77, which is comparable to the CNRG Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW and CNRG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PBWCNRGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.77

3.25

+0.53

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.24

0.15

-0.39

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.29

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.03

0.62

-0.65

Drawdowns

PBW vs. CNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than CNRG's maximum drawdown of -68.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and CNRG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PBWCNRGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.02%

-68.49%

-20.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.24%

-17.73%

-3.51%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-68.04%

-48.77%

-19.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-84.50%

-59.17%

-25.33%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.02%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-62.54%

-11.12%

-51.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-62.91%

-31.82%

-31.09%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.64%

6.90%

+0.74%

Volatility

PBW vs. CNRG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 13.35% compared to SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) at 12.13%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PBWCNRGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.35%

12.13%

+1.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

28.20%

25.44%

+2.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

40.48%

36.49%

+3.99%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

42.91%

33.99%

+8.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

38.76%

35.78%

+2.98%

PBW vs. CNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than CNRG's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

PBW vs. CNRG - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than CNRG's 1.01% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
1.01%1.46%1.34%1.17%1.23%1.34%0.69%1.16%0.35%0.00%0.00%0.00%
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
0.60%0.79%2.84%3.68%4.21%1.71%0.44%1.45%2.04%1.28%2.68%1.53%

Frequently Asked Questions


PBW and CNRG have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PBW has higher volatility (13.35%) compared to CNRG (12.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs CNRG's -68.49%.

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 5.21% vs -10.05% for PBW. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, CNRG has been the lower-risk option at 12.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 5.21% return vs -10.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.60% for PBW.

PBW is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while CNRG is Alternative Energy Equities. PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.45% for CNRG.

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.77 vs 3.25), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PBW and CNRG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer