SCHG vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, while FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. SCHG is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SCHG returned 23.27%/yr vs 6.49%/yr for FRNW. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SCHG charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

SCHG vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCHG achieves a 5.03% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 23.62% return.

SCHG

• 1D: 2.39%
• 1M: -0.12%
• YTD: 5.03%
• 6M: 5.98%
• 1Y: 23.20%
• 3Y*: 23.27%
• 5Y*: 14.85%
• 10Y*: 18.85%

FRNW

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: -4.24%
• YTD: 23.62%
• 6M: 23.50%
• 1Y: 63.53%
• 3Y*: 6.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SCHG vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	5.03%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-31.80%	9.82%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	23.62%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between SCHG and FRNW is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.57

The correlation between SCHG and FRNW shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (3 years) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SCHG vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SCHG	FRNW
Technology	46.7%	6.0%
Communication Services	15.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.4%	-
Healthcare	8.4%	-
Financial Services	6.6%	-
Industrials	6.0%	28.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	1.3%	-
Energy	0.7%	22.5%
Real Estate	0.5%	-
Utilities	0.4%	42.5%

Return for Risk

SCHG vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 40
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 79
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

SCHG vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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.

	SCHG	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	2.37	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	2.98	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.37	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	4.50	-3.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.68	15.55	-10.87

SCHG vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCHG Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCHG and FRNW, 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

SCHG vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCHG drawdown since its inception was -34.59%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCHG and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	SCHG	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.59%	-59.37%	+24.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.41%	-14.20%	-2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.39%	-45.14%	+21.75%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.59%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.06%	-10.73%	+7.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.20%	-33.15%	+27.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.97%	4.10%	+0.87%

Volatility

SCHG vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) is 5.59%, while Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a volatility of 10.63%. This indicates that SCHG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SCHG	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	10.63%	-5.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.52%	19.59%	-7.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.09%	26.98%	-10.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.35%	28.51%	-6.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.60%	28.51%	-6.91%

SCHG vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCHG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

SCHG vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

SCHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than FRNW's 1.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.02%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.37%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SCHG and FRNW in my portfolio?

SCHG and FRNW have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SCHG or FRNW?

FRNW has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to SCHG (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCHG dropped -34.59% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, SCHG or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, SCHG leads with 23.27% vs 6.49% for FRNW. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SCHG or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 23.27% return vs 6.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SCHG or FRNW?

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FRNW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SCHG or FRNW?

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.02%, compared with 0.37% for SCHG.

What is the main difference between SCHG and FRNW?

SCHG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FRNW is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for SCHG and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 1.45), 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.