TAN vs. CNRG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index while CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TAN returned -6.08%/yr vs 3.85%/yr for CNRG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNRG.

Performance

TAN vs. CNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 24.41% return, which is significantly lower than CNRG's 29.13% return.

TAN

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: 24.41%
• 6M: 18.89%
• 1Y: 90.67%
• 3Y*: -3.33%
• 5Y*: -6.08%
• 10Y*: 12.83%

CNRG

• 1D: 1.91%
• 1M: -0.57%
• YTD: 29.13%
• 6M: 23.65%
• 1Y: 106.10%
• 3Y*: 13.97%
• 5Y*: 3.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

TAN vs. CNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	24.41%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	233.96%	66.53%	-1.27%
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	29.13%	50.23%	-14.48%	-11.55%	-7.98%	-15.68%	138.35%	63.26%	-2.05%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and CNRG is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2018	0.89

The correlation between TAN and CNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. CNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	CNRG
Technology	65.1%	10.6%
Energy	57.3%	23.5%
Utilities	29.2%	27.1%
Financial Services	3.5%	-
Industrials	2.3%	37.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. CNRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 74
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 61
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 76

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 81
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

TAN vs. CNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). 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.

	TAN	CNRG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	2.83	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.19	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.41	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.35	5.92	-1.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	14.49	-0.52

TAN vs. CNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is comparable to the CNRG Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and CNRG, 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

TAN vs. CNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than CNRG's maximum drawdown of -68.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and CNRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	CNRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-68.49%	-26.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.94%	-18.01%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	-48.77%	-15.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	-59.17%	-14.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-71.94%	-16.03%	-55.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.47%	-31.73%	-46.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.51%	7.35%	-0.84%

Volatility

TAN vs. CNRG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 16.46% compared to SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) at 15.44%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	CNRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.46%	15.44%	+1.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.51%	26.85%	+1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.32%	37.81%	+0.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.11%	34.41%	+5.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.17%	35.95%	+2.22%

TAN vs. CNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than CNRG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. CNRG - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.21%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TAN and CNRG in my portfolio?

TAN and CNRG have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TAN or CNRG?

TAN has higher volatility (16.46%) compared to CNRG (15.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs CNRG's -68.49%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or CNRG?

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 3.85% vs -6.08% for TAN. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, CNRG has been the lower-risk option at 15.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or CNRG?

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 3.85% return vs -6.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or CNRG?

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TAN or CNRG?

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and CNRG?

TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.45% for CNRG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.38), 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.