SMOG vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SMOG (VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. SMOG is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SMOG returned 10.86%/yr vs 10.12%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMOG charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

SMOG vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF (SMOG) 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, SMOG achieves a 18.16% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 34.11% return.

SMOG

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 18.16%
• 6M: 17.43%
• 1Y: 42.14%
• 3Y*: 10.86%
• 5Y*: 1.76%
• 10Y*: 12.70%

FRNW

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 7.89%
• YTD: 34.11%
• 6M: 34.18%
• 1Y: 86.03%
• 3Y*: 10.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SMOG vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
SMOG VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF	18.16%	33.36%	-9.33%	1.42%	-29.92%	7.31%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between SMOG and FRNW is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.87

The correlation between SMOG and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMOG vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMOG	FRNW
Utilities	33.2%	43.3%
Industrials	28.1%	30.1%
Consumer Cyclical	21.7%	-
Technology	8.4%	5.5%
Energy	6.6%	21.0%
Basic Materials	1.2%	-
Financial Services	0.6%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

SMOG vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMOG

SMOG Risk / Return Rank: 66
SMOG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
SMOG Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
SMOG Omega Ratio Rank: 56
SMOG Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
SMOG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 90
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

SMOG vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF (SMOG) 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.

	SMOG	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	3.39	-1.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	4.06	-1.37
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.51	-0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.80	7.47	-2.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.62	23.29	-9.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMOG vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMOG Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is lower than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 3.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMOG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	SMOG	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	3.39	-1.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.07	0.09	-0.02

Drawdowns

SMOG vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMOG drawdown since its inception was -84.39%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMOG and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMOG	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-84.39%	-59.37%	-25.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-11.58%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.72%	-45.27%	+16.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-51.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.61%	-3.15%	-11.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-52.47%	-33.33%	-19.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	3.71%	-0.61%

Volatility

SMOG vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF (SMOG) is 7.43%, while Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a volatility of 8.16%. This indicates that SMOG 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

	SMOG	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.43%	8.16%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.46%	17.79%	-2.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.49%	25.61%	-5.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.12%	28.35%	-3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.73%	28.35%	-2.62%

SMOG vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMOG has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMOG vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

SMOG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, more than FRNW's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SMOG VanEck Low Carbon Energy ETF	1.33%	1.57%	1.64%	1.58%	1.32%	0.44%	0.06%	0.00%	0.62%	1.25%	2.12%	0.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMOG and FRNW in my portfolio?

SMOG and FRNW have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMOG or FRNW?

FRNW has higher volatility (8.16%) compared to SMOG (7.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMOG dropped -84.39% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, SMOG or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, SMOG leads with 10.86% vs 10.12% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, SMOG has been the lower-risk option at 7.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMOG or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, SMOG has performed better with a 10.86% return vs 10.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMOG or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for SMOG.

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

SMOG has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.94% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between SMOG and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for SMOG and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 2.07), 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.