PWER vs. PBD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) and PBD (Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. PWER is actively managed, while PBD is passively managed. Over the past year, PWER returned 70.78% vs 92.04% for PBD. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWER charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for PBD.

Performance

PWER vs. PBD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWER achieves a 31.35% return, which is significantly lower than PBD's 38.50% return.

PWER

• 1D: -1.00%
• 1M: 7.47%
• YTD: 31.35%
• 6M: 32.81%
• 1Y: 70.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PBD

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 6.10%
• YTD: 38.50%
• 6M: 39.82%
• 1Y: 92.04%
• 3Y*: 8.96%
• 5Y*: -3.66%
• 10Y*: 9.45%

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

PWER vs. PBD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	31.35%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.72%
PBD Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF	38.50%	43.65%	-26.39%	10.74%

Correlation

The correlation between PWER and PBD is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.72

The correlation between PWER and PBD shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (1 year) to 0.72 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PWER vs. PBD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWER	PBD
Energy	41.1%	12.4%
Basic Materials	41.0%	3.4%
Industrials	12.2%	48.1%
Technology	3.8%	6.8%
Utilities	1.9%	12.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.9%
Financial Services	-	1.2%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PWER vs. PBD — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 93
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 90
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 95

PBD

PBD Risk / Return Rank: 94
PBD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
PBD Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
PBD Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PBD Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PBD Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. PBD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	PWER	PBD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.61	3.96	-0.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.45	4.64	-0.20
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.61	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.85	8.65	-0.80
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	32.42	26.96	+5.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PWER vs. PBD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWER Sharpe Ratio is 3.61, which is comparable to the PBD Sharpe Ratio of 3.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWER and PBD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PWER	PBD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.61	3.96	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.13	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.24	0.03	+1.21

Drawdowns

PWER vs. PBD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWER drawdown since its inception was -29.68%, smaller than the maximum PBD drawdown of -78.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWER and PBD.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWER	PBD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.68%	-78.60%	+48.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.07%	-10.70%	+1.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-52.45%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-69.15%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	-39.02%	+38.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.22%	-53.40%	+47.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.19%	3.43%	-1.24%

Volatility

PWER vs. PBD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) is 6.20%, while Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD) has a volatility of 8.57%. This indicates that PWER experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWER	PBD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	8.57%	-2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.55%	17.00%	-1.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.74%	23.41%	-3.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.37%	28.37%	-5.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.37%	27.26%	-3.89%

PWER vs. PBD - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWER has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than PBD's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWER vs. PBD - Dividend Comparison

PWER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than PBD's 1.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PBD Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF	1.63%	2.71%	1.81%	2.85%	2.98%	0.67%	0.48%	1.83%	1.86%	1.76%	2.04%	1.24%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	1.05%	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 PWER and PBD in my portfolio?

PWER and PBD have a correlation of 0.61, 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 PBD?

PBD has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to PWER (6.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWER dropped -29.68% vs PBD's -78.60%.

Which ETF is better, PWER or PBD?

On 1-year performance, PBD leads with 92.04% vs 70.78% for PWER. On fees, PBD is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 6.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWER or PBD?

Over the 1-year period, PBD has performed better with a 92.04% return vs 70.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWER or PBD?

PBD is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PBD has the higher dividend yield at 1.63%, compared with 1.05% for PWER.

What is the main difference between PWER and PBD?

They also come from different issuers: Macquarie and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for PWER and 0.75% for PBD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.96 vs 3.61), 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.