PBW vs. PWER

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. PBW is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, PBW returned 46.40% vs 47.41% for PWER. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PBW charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

PBW vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBW achieves a 5.86% return, which is significantly lower than PWER's 20.08% 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%

PWER

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: 4.71%
• 6M: 9.41%
• YTD: 20.08%
• 1Y: 47.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 22.37%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	$37.14M	$32.16M	$36.05M
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	$21.47K	$15.89K	$31.95K

PBW vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	5.86%	53.96%	-30.77%	15.85%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	20.08%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.35%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and PWER is 0.65, 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.	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2023	0.71

The correlation between PBW and PWER has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBW	PWER
Industrials	25.7%	14.8%
Technology	23.6%	4.7%
Basic Materials	16.3%	41.8%
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	-
Utilities	9.1%	2.0%
Energy	3.9%	36.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	-
Financial Services	1.4%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PBW vs. PWER — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 38
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 38
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 36

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 83
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 84
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	2.11	-1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	2.68	-1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.36	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.20	3.33	-2.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.64	9.51	-5.86

PBW vs. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is lower than the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW and PWER, 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. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBW	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.02%	-29.68%	-59.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.09%	-13.70%	-22.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.32%	—	—
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	-73.32%	-9.50%	-63.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.94%	-6.47%	-56.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.82%	4.78%	+7.04%

Volatility

PBW vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 14.90% compared to Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) at 5.16%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBW	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.90%	5.16%	+9.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.63%	17.44%	+16.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.14%	21.56%	+22.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.61%	23.54%	+20.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.25%	23.54%	+15.71%

PBW vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBW vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than PWER's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	0.80%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBW and PWER in my portfolio?

PBW and PWER have a correlation of 0.65, 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 PWER?

PBW has higher volatility (14.90%) compared to PWER (5.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, PBW or PWER?

On 1-year performance, PWER leads with 47.41% vs 46.40% for PBW. On fees, PBW is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 5.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBW or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, PWER has performed better with a 47.41% return vs 46.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBW or PWER?

PBW is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

What is the main difference between PBW and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 0.98), 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.