PCGG vs. EINC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and EINC (VanEck Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while EINC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS North America Energy Infrastructure Index. PCGG is actively managed, while EINC is passively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -8.84% vs 29.82% for EINC. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EINC.

Performance

PCGG vs. EINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCGG achieves a -10.94% return, which is significantly lower than EINC's 25.97% return.

PCGG

• 1D: -1.73%
• 1M: -2.85%
• YTD: -10.94%
• 6M: -11.09%
• 1Y: -8.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EINC

• 1D: 1.37%
• 1M: -4.50%
• YTD: 25.97%
• 6M: 25.98%
• 1Y: 29.82%
• 3Y*: 30.36%
• 5Y*: 21.18%
• 10Y*: 12.03%

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

PCGG vs. EINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-10.94%	1.62%	12.40%	4.17%
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	25.97%	7.11%	42.79%	4.89%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and EINC is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2023	0.15

The correlation between PCGG and EINC shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PCGG vs. EINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCGG	EINC
Technology	40.1%	-
Financial Services	17.5%	-
Communication Services	15.8%	-
Healthcare	13.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	-
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	99.4%
Industrials	-	2.5%
Utilities	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. EINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 5
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 4
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 5

EINC

EINC Risk / Return Rank: 64
EINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
EINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
EINC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
EINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EINC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

PCGG vs. EINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). 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.

	PCGG	EINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.56	1.99	-2.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.67	2.67	-3.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.35	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.39	3.80	-4.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.92	9.63	-10.55

PCGG vs. EINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.56, which is lower than the EINC Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG and EINC, 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

PCGG vs. EINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, smaller than the maximum EINC drawdown of -87.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and EINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	EINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-87.55%	+64.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-7.89%	-14.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-68.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.40%	-4.50%	-10.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.10%	-44.15%	+39.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.63%	3.10%	+6.53%

Volatility

PCGG vs. EINC - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) have volatilities of 6.36% and 6.51%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCGG	EINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.36%	6.51%	-0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.09%	11.88%	+1.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.99%	15.10%	+0.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	19.54%	-2.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.81%	25.43%	-8.62%

PCGG vs. EINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than EINC's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. EINC - Dividend Comparison

PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	3.51%	4.51%	3.33%	3.77%	2.89%	6.03%	6.69%	9.66%	11.31%	8.53%	9.71%	28.53%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and EINC in my portfolio?

PCGG and EINC have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCGG or EINC?

EINC has higher volatility (6.51%) compared to PCGG (6.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs EINC's -87.55%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or EINC?

On 1-year performance, EINC leads with 29.82% vs -8.84% for PCGG. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 6.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or EINC?

Over the 1-year period, EINC has performed better with a 29.82% return vs -8.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or EINC?

EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCGG or EINC?

EINC has the higher dividend yield at 3.51%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between PCGG and EINC?

PCGG is categorized as Global Equities, while EINC is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Polen and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.45% for EINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs -0.56), 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.