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

Performance

PBW vs. ERTH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH). 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 5.86% return, which is significantly higher than ERTH's -1.58% return. Over the past 10 years, PBW has outperformed ERTH with an annualized return of 7.09%, while ERTH has yielded a comparatively lower 6.39% annualized return.


PBW

1D
0.16%
1M
-12.22%
6M
-4.18%
YTD
5.86%
1Y
46.40%
3Y*
-7.64%
5Y*
-15.46%
10Y*
7.09%
ALL TIME*
-2.58%

ERTH

1D
-0.38%
1M
-1.77%
6M
-3.27%
YTD
-1.58%
1Y
9.02%
3Y*
-2.78%
5Y*
-6.13%
10Y*
6.39%
ALL TIME*
4.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$113.13K$114.74K$158.59K
$37.14M$32.16M$36.05M

PBW vs. ERTH - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
5.86%53.96%-30.77%-20.03%-44.55%-29.86%204.82%62.58%-14.11%39.92%
ERTH
Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF
-1.58%18.47%-13.56%0.12%-27.59%2.64%51.02%36.78%-12.49%30.53%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and ERTH is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.78

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.83

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.85

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2006

0.81

The correlation between PBW and ERTH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. ERTH - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PBW
ERTH

Industrials

25.7%
2.6%

Technology

23.6%
12.1%

Basic Materials

16.3%
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

15.3%
9.5%

Utilities

9.1%
2.3%

Energy

3.9%
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.1%
1.5%

Financial Services

1.4%
0.3%

Communication Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

11.7%

Industrials

PBW
25.7%
ERTH
2.6%

Technology

PBW
23.6%
ERTH
12.1%

Basic Materials

PBW
16.3%
ERTH
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

PBW
15.3%
ERTH
9.5%

Utilities

PBW
9.1%
ERTH
2.3%

Energy

PBW
3.9%
ERTH
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

PBW
2.1%
ERTH
1.5%

Financial Services

PBW
1.4%
ERTH
0.3%

Communication Services

PBW

-

ERTH

-

Healthcare

PBW

-

ERTH

-

Real Estate

PBW

-

ERTH
11.7%

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. ERTH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PBW
PBW Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank

ERTH
ERTH Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
ERTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ERTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
ERTH Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
ERTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
ERTH Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PBW vs. ERTH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH). 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.


PBWERTHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.71

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.09

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.20

0.73

+0.46

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.64

1.98

+1.66

PBW vs. ERTH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is higher than the ERTH Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW and ERTH, 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...

Drawdowns

PBW vs. ERTH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than ERTH's maximum drawdown of -64.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and ERTH.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PBWERTHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.02%

-64.45%

-24.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-36.09%

-11.51%

-24.58%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-65.32%

-31.18%

-34.14%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-84.50%

-51.72%

-32.78%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.02%

-51.72%

-37.30%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-73.32%

-33.70%

-39.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-62.94%

-21.55%

-41.39%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

11.82%

4.25%

+7.57%

Volatility

PBW vs. ERTH - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 14.90% compared to Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH) at 4.87%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ERTH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PBWERTHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.90%

4.87%

+10.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

33.63%

13.24%

+20.39%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

44.14%

17.43%

+26.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.61%

22.84%

+20.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

39.25%

22.53%

+16.72%

PBW vs. ERTH - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than ERTH's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

PBW vs. ERTH - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than ERTH's 1.97% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ERTH
Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF
1.97%1.46%1.00%1.28%1.22%15.33%0.21%0.71%0.61%0.87%1.06%0.79%
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
1.47%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 ERTH have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PBW has higher volatility (14.90%) compared to ERTH (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs ERTH's -64.45%.

On 10-year performance, PBW leads with 7.09% vs 6.39% for ERTH. On fees, ERTH is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, ERTH has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, PBW has performed better with a 7.09% return vs 6.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ERTH is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

ERTH has the higher dividend yield at 1.97%, compared with 1.47% for PBW.

PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while ERTH tracks MSCI Global Environment Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.55% for ERTH.

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.98 vs 0.49), 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 ERTH

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