PWER vs. ACES

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. PWER is actively managed, while ACES is passively managed. Over the past year, PWER returned 49.01% vs 42.77% for ACES. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWER charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.

Performance

PWER vs. ACES - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWER achieves a 19.28% return, which is significantly higher than ACES's 9.28% return.

PWER

• 1D: -3.13%
• 1M: -4.18%
• YTD: 19.28%
• 6M: 18.48%
• 1Y: 49.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACES

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 6M: 4.82%
• 1Y: 42.77%
• 3Y*: -5.11%
• 5Y*: -12.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

PWER vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	19.28%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.35%
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	9.28%	25.44%	-26.71%	16.74%

Correlation

The correlation between PWER and ACES is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2023	0.71

The correlation between PWER and ACES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

PWER vs. ACES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWER	ACES
Basic Materials	44.2%	7.3%
Energy	36.9%	0.4%
Industrials	11.7%	21.6%
Technology	5.5%	30.1%
Utilities	1.8%	23.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.5%
Financial Services	-	4.4%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PWER vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 79
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 72
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 88

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 39
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

PWER vs. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). 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.

	PWER	ACES	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	1.27	+1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	1.79	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.22	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.88	2.41	+2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.97	5.66	+12.31

PWER vs. ACES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWER Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is higher than the ACES Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWER and ACES, 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

PWER vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWER drawdown since its inception was -29.68%, smaller than the maximum ACES drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWER and ACES.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWER	ACES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.68%	-79.05%	+49.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.10%	-17.82%	+7.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-58.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-74.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.10%	-63.00%	+52.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.23%	-38.99%	+32.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.74%	7.58%	-4.84%

Volatility

PWER vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) is 9.67%, while ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a volatility of 14.00%. This indicates that PWER experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACES based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWER	ACES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.67%	14.00%	-4.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.39%	25.21%	-7.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.34%	33.93%	-12.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.71%	36.52%	-12.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.71%	35.72%	-12.01%

PWER vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWER has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWER vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison

PWER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, more than ACES's 0.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	1.30%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PWER and ACES in my portfolio?

PWER and ACES have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PWER or ACES?

ACES has higher volatility (14.00%) compared to PWER (9.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWER dropped -29.68% vs ACES's -79.05%.

Which ETF is better, PWER or ACES?

On 1-year performance, PWER leads with 49.01% vs 42.77% for ACES. On fees, ACES is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 9.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWER or ACES?

Over the 1-year period, PWER has performed better with a 49.01% return vs 42.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWER or ACES?

ACES is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PWER has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between PWER and ACES?

They also come from different issuers: Macquarie and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for PWER and 0.55% for ACES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 vs 1.27), 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.