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

Performance

PBW vs. RNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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 28.31% return, which is significantly higher than RNRG's 8.88% return. Over the past 10 years, PBW has outperformed RNRG with an annualized return of 9.92%, while RNRG has yielded a comparatively lower 3.92% annualized return.


PBW

1D
-5.58%
1M
-8.98%
YTD
28.31%
6M
22.11%
1Y
107.61%
3Y*
3.84%
5Y*
-13.40%
10Y*
9.92%

RNRG

1D
-0.67%
1M
-4.53%
YTD
8.88%
6M
9.48%
1Y
28.40%
3Y*
1.96%
5Y*
-4.62%
10Y*
3.92%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PBW vs. RNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
28.31%53.96%-30.77%-20.03%-44.55%-29.86%204.82%62.58%-14.11%39.92%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF
8.88%29.61%-22.00%-12.82%-15.30%-12.78%26.67%37.04%-6.22%21.16%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and RNRG is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.54

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

0.57

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

0.63

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2015

0.57

The correlation between PBW and RNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. RNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PBW
RNRG

Industrials

34.2%
3.0%

Basic Materials

16.2%
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

14.9%

-

Technology

14.4%
2.8%

Energy

11.2%

-

Utilities

6.5%
92.2%

Financial Services

1.5%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.1%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

PBW
34.2%
RNRG
3.0%

Basic Materials

PBW
16.2%
RNRG
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

PBW
14.9%
RNRG

-

Technology

PBW
14.4%
RNRG
2.8%

Energy

PBW
11.2%
RNRG

-

Utilities

PBW
6.5%
RNRG
92.2%

Financial Services

PBW
1.5%
RNRG

-

Consumer Defensive

PBW
1.1%
RNRG

-

Communication Services

PBW

-

RNRG

-

Healthcare

PBW

-

RNRG

-

Real Estate

PBW

-

RNRG

-

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. RNRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBW
PBW Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

RNRG
RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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. RNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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.


PBWRNRGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.30

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.09

3.17

+1.93

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.07

11.12

+1.95

PBW vs. RNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is higher than the RNRG Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW and RNRG, 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. RNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than RNRG's maximum drawdown of -58.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and RNRG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PBWRNRGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.02%

-58.79%

-30.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.24%

-9.00%

-12.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-68.04%

-35.23%

-32.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-84.50%

-52.17%

-32.33%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-89.02%

-58.79%

-30.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-67.66%

-35.57%

-32.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-62.90%

-24.48%

-38.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.26%

2.56%

+5.70%

Volatility

PBW vs. RNRG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 17.93% compared to Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) at 5.83%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PBWRNRGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.93%

5.83%

+12.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

31.32%

12.81%

+18.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.50%

16.03%

+26.47%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.39%

20.16%

+23.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

39.02%

19.64%

+19.38%

PBW vs. RNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than RNRG's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

PBW vs. RNRG - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, less than RNRG's 1.38% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
PBW
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF
1.21%0.79%2.84%3.68%4.21%1.71%0.44%1.45%2.04%1.28%2.68%1.53%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF
1.38%1.50%1.48%1.44%1.15%1.10%3.16%2.97%5.22%4.14%5.02%3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


PBW and RNRG have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PBW has higher volatility (17.93%) compared to RNRG (5.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs RNRG's -58.79%.

On 10-year performance, PBW leads with 9.92% vs 3.92% for RNRG. On fees, PBW is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, RNRG has been the lower-risk option at 5.83%. 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 9.92% return vs 3.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

PBW is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RNRG.

RNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 1.21% for PBW.

PBW is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while RNRG is Alternative Energy Equities. PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.65% for RNRG.

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.78), 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 RNRG

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