RNWZ vs. ECLN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) and ECLN (First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares, while ECLN is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RNWZ returned 11.78%/yr vs 17.40%/yr for ECLN. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RNWZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for ECLN.

Performance

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNWZ achieves a 14.05% return, which is significantly higher than ECLN's 12.96% return.

RNWZ

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: -2.56%
• YTD: 14.05%
• 6M: 15.05%
• 1Y: 33.86%
• 3Y*: 11.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ECLN

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: -1.81%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 13.23%
• 1Y: 20.96%
• 3Y*: 17.40%
• 5Y*: 12.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	14.05%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.74%
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	12.96%	16.78%	22.60%	-3.36%	-1.44%

Correlation

The correlation between RNWZ and ECLN is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2022	0.66

The correlation between RNWZ and ECLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNWZ	ECLN
Utilities	41.0%	76.4%
Financial Services	6.7%	-
Industrials	5.3%	6.8%
Basic Materials	4.8%	-
Energy	3.7%	16.3%
Real Estate	3.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

RNWZ vs. ECLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 73
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 68

ECLN

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN). 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.

	RNWZ	ECLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	2.08	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	3.03	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.36	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.62	4.33	+0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.19	11.59	+0.60

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNWZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the ECLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNWZ and ECLN, 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

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNWZ drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum ECLN drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNWZ and ECLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNWZ	ECLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-32.28%	+7.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.36%	-5.02%	-2.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.74%	-14.68%	-10.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.88%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.30%	-2.96%	-3.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.16%	-4.99%	-2.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.79%	1.87%	+0.92%

Volatility

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) has a higher volatility of 4.31% compared to First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) at 3.75%. This indicates that RNWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNWZ	ECLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	3.75%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.21%	8.12%	+4.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.32%	10.45%	+4.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.96%	14.22%	+2.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.96%	17.39%	-0.43%

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNWZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than ECLN's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNWZ vs. ECLN - Dividend Comparison

RNWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, while ECLN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	1.81%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.96%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNWZ and ECLN in my portfolio?

RNWZ and ECLN have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNWZ or ECLN?

RNWZ has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to ECLN (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNWZ dropped -24.90% vs ECLN's -32.28%.

Which ETF is better, RNWZ or ECLN?

On 3-year performance, ECLN leads with 17.40% vs 11.78% for RNWZ. On fees, RNWZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, ECLN has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNWZ or ECLN?

Over the 3-year period, ECLN has performed better with a 17.40% return vs 11.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNWZ or ECLN?

RNWZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for ECLN.

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

RNWZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 1.81% for ECLN.

What is the main difference between RNWZ and ECLN?

RNWZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while ECLN is Utilities Equities. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RNWZ and 0.97% for ECLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 2.08), 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.