PBW vs. FRNW

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBW is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. PBW is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PBW returned -4.93%/yr vs 3.95%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PBW charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

PBW vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with PBW having a 12.09% return and FRNW slightly higher at 12.68%.

PBW

• 1D: -3.46%
• 1M: -14.83%
• 6M: -0.86%
• YTD: 12.09%
• 1Y: 55.86%
• 3Y*: -4.93%
• 5Y*: -14.27%
• 10Y*: 7.70%

FRNW

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: -8.48%
• 6M: 6.29%
• YTD: 12.68%
• 1Y: 39.49%
• 3Y*: 3.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBW vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	12.09%	53.96%	-30.77%	-20.03%	-44.55%	-1.67%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	12.68%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and FRNW is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.84

The correlation between PBW and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBW	FRNW
Industrials	28.0%	26.5%
Basic Materials	13.5%	-
Energy	12.9%	21.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	-
Technology	9.9%	5.3%
Utilities	8.4%	46.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	-
Financial Services	1.3%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PBW vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 45
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 41
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 45

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 53
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	PBW	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.46	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	2.03	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.24	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	2.26	-0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.82	7.31	-1.49

PBW vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW 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

PBW vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBW	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.02%	-59.37%	-29.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.22%	-17.58%	-9.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-68.04%	-45.14%	-22.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-84.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-71.75%	-18.63%	-53.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.92%	-32.87%	-30.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.62%	5.41%	+4.21%

Volatility

PBW vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 14.18% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 9.42%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBW	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.18%	9.42%	+4.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.08%	20.30%	+11.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.18%	27.21%	+15.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.54%	28.55%	+14.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.09%	28.55%	+10.54%

PBW vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBW vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, more than FRNW's 1.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.21%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	1.39%	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

Can I hold both PBW and FRNW in my portfolio?

PBW and FRNW have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBW or FRNW?

PBW has higher volatility (14.18%) compared to FRNW (9.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, PBW or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 3.95% vs -4.93% for PBW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 9.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBW or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 3.95% return vs -4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBW or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

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

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 1.21% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between PBW and FRNW?

PBW is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while FRNW is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.46 vs 1.30), 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.