PXJ vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PXJ (Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. PXJ is passively managed, while RNWZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PXJ returned 24.79%/yr vs 12.63%/yr for RNWZ. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PXJ charges 0.63%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PXJ achieves a 46.18% return, which is significantly higher than RNWZ's 16.28% return.

PXJ

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: -6.26%
• YTD: 46.18%
• 6M: 38.54%
• 1Y: 82.76%
• 3Y*: 24.79%
• 5Y*: 17.27%
• 10Y*: -0.80%

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: 16.28%
• 6M: 16.86%
• 1Y: 38.19%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PXJ Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF	46.18%	8.74%	0.21%	14.44%	11.68%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.28%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between PXJ and RNWZ is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2022	0.27

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PXJ	RNWZ
Energy	92.6%	3.8%
Industrials	5.2%	5.3%
Utilities	2.1%	41.0%
Financial Services	0.1%	6.9%
Basic Materials	-	4.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	3.2%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

PXJ vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

PXJ

PXJ Risk / Return Rank: 89
PXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
PXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
PXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 80
PXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 93

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). 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.

	PXJ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.17	2.55	+0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	3.40	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.45	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.24	6.33	+1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.98	15.60	+8.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PXJ Sharpe Ratio is 3.17, which is comparable to the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PXJ and RNWZ, 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

	PXJ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.17	2.55	+0.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.02	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.05	0.61	-0.66

Drawdowns

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PXJ drawdown since its inception was -94.82%, which is greater than RNWZ's maximum drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PXJ and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	PXJ	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-94.82%	-24.90%	-69.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.10%	-6.06%	-4.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.03%	-24.74%	-15.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-87.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-66.60%	-4.46%	-62.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-55.67%	-7.19%	-48.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	2.45%	+1.01%

Volatility

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF (PXJ) has a higher volatility of 7.75% compared to TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) at 5.06%. This indicates that PXJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PXJ	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.75%	5.06%	+2.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.30%	11.86%	+6.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.41%	15.06%	+11.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.57%	16.99%	+17.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.47%	16.99%	+22.48%

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

PXJ has a 0.63% expense ratio, which is lower than RNWZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PXJ vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

PXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.21%, more than RNWZ's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PXJ Invesco Dynamic Oil & Gas Services ETF	2.21%	2.91%	3.34%	1.99%	0.65%	2.40%	4.72%	1.87%	0.99%	2.75%	1.18%	2.36%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PXJ and RNWZ in my portfolio?

PXJ and RNWZ have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PXJ or RNWZ?

PXJ has higher volatility (7.75%) compared to RNWZ (5.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PXJ dropped -94.82% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, PXJ or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, PXJ leads with 24.79% vs 12.63% for RNWZ. On fees, PXJ is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, RNWZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PXJ or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, PXJ has performed better with a 24.79% return vs 12.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PXJ or RNWZ?

PXJ is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PXJ or RNWZ?

PXJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.21%, compared with 1.93% for RNWZ.

What is the main difference between PXJ and RNWZ?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and TrueShares. Their fees differ too: 0.63% for PXJ and 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.17 vs 2.55), 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.