PPH vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

PPH (VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PPH is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Pharmaceutical 25 Index, while FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. PPH is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PPH returned 12.38%/yr vs 6.49%/yr for FRNW. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PPH charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

PPH vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PPH achieves a 2.96% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 23.62% return.

PPH

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 4.48%
• YTD: 2.96%
• 6M: 3.80%
• 1Y: 18.69%
• 3Y*: 12.38%
• 5Y*: 9.47%
• 10Y*: 8.39%

FRNW

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -4.24%
• YTD: 23.62%
• 6M: 23.50%
• 1Y: 63.53%
• 3Y*: 6.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PPH vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PPH VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF	2.96%	22.00%	8.05%	6.95%	2.64%	7.11%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	23.62%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between PPH and FRNW is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.34

The correlation between PPH and FRNW shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (1 year) to 0.34 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PPH vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PPH	FRNW
Healthcare	100.0%	-
Industrials	0.1%	28.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	22.5%
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	42.5%

Return for Risk

PPH vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PPH

PPH Risk / Return Rank: 34
PPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
PPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
PPH Omega Ratio Rank: 31
PPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
PPH Martin Ratio Rank: 32

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 79
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

PPH vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF (PPH) 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.

	PPH	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	2.37	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	2.98	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.37	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	4.50	-2.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.30	15.55	-11.25

PPH vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PPH Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PPH 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

PPH vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PPH drawdown since its inception was -51.45%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PPH and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PPH	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.45%	-59.37%	+7.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.76%	-14.20%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.06%	-45.14%	+27.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.26%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.70%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.90%	-10.73%	+5.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.29%	-33.15%	+15.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.45%	4.10%	+0.35%

Volatility

PPH vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF (PPH) is 5.95%, while Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a volatility of 10.63%. This indicates that PPH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PPH	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.95%	10.63%	-4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.18%	19.59%	-7.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	26.98%	-9.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.14%	28.51%	-13.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.00%	28.51%	-11.51%

PPH vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PPH has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

PPH vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

PPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, more than FRNW's 1.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.02%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PPH VanEck Pharmaceutical ETF	2.05%	1.78%	1.98%	2.09%	1.55%	1.62%	1.66%	1.77%	1.97%	1.92%	2.43%	1.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PPH and FRNW in my portfolio?

PPH and FRNW have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PPH or FRNW?

FRNW has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to PPH (5.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PPH dropped -51.45% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, PPH or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, PPH leads with 12.38% vs 6.49% for FRNW. On fees, PPH is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, PPH has been the lower-risk option at 5.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PPH or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, PPH has performed better with a 12.38% return vs 6.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PPH or FRNW?

PPH is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FRNW.

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

PPH has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 1.02% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between PPH and FRNW?

PPH is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while FRNW is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for PPH and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.07), 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.