RNRG vs. PWER

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RNRG (Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. RNRG is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, RNRG returned 42.65% vs 70.78% for PWER. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RNRG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

RNRG vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNRG achieves a 17.66% return, which is significantly lower than PWER's 31.35% return.

RNRG

• 1D: -1.39%
• 1M: 0.86%
• YTD: 17.66%
• 6M: 17.51%
• 1Y: 42.65%
• 3Y*: 4.44%
• 5Y*: -2.70%
• 10Y*: 4.47%

PWER

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

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

RNRG vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	17.66%	29.61%	-22.00%	9.88%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	31.35%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.72%

Correlation

The correlation between RNRG and PWER is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.53

The correlation between RNRG and PWER has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

RNRG vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNRG	PWER
Utilities	92.8%	1.9%
Industrials	3.0%	12.2%
Technology	2.2%	3.8%
Basic Materials	2.1%	41.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	41.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

RNRG vs. PWER — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNRG

RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 84
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 75
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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

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.

RNRG vs. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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.

	RNRG	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.72	3.61	-0.90
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	4.45	-0.86
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.59	-0.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.20	7.85	-0.64
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.98	32.42	-12.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNRG vs. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNRG Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is comparable to the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 3.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNRG and PWER, 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

	RNRG	PWER	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.72	3.61	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.13	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.23	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.07	1.24	-1.17

Drawdowns

RNRG vs. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNRG drawdown since its inception was -58.79%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNRG and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNRG	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.79%	-29.68%	-29.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.95%	-9.07%	+3.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.17%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-58.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.37%	-1.00%	-29.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.45%	-6.22%	-18.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	2.19%	-0.05%

Volatility

RNRG vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) is 5.55%, while Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that RNRG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNRG	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.55%	6.20%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.10%	15.55%	-3.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.77%	19.74%	-3.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.10%	23.37%	-3.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.67%	23.37%	-3.70%

RNRG vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNRG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNRG vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

RNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, more than PWER's 1.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	1.28%	1.50%	1.48%	1.44%	1.15%	1.10%	3.16%	2.97%	5.22%	4.14%	5.02%	3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNRG and PWER in my portfolio?

RNRG and PWER have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNRG or PWER?

PWER has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to RNRG (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNRG dropped -58.79% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, RNRG or PWER?

On 1-year performance, PWER leads with 70.78% vs 42.65% for RNRG. On fees, RNRG is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, RNRG has been the lower-risk option at 5.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNRG or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, PWER has performed better with a 70.78% return vs 42.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNRG or PWER?

RNRG is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

RNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 1.05% for PWER.

What is the main difference between RNRG and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RNRG and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 vs 2.72), 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.