PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TAN vs. ERTH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TAN vs. ERTH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 17.81% return, which is significantly higher than ERTH's 0.50% return. Over the past 10 years, TAN has outperformed ERTH with an annualized return of 12.52%, while ERTH has yielded a comparatively lower 7.73% annualized return.


TAN

1D
-0.50%
1M
-16.08%
YTD
17.81%
6M
13.78%
1Y
72.90%
3Y*
-5.24%
5Y*
-7.42%
10Y*
12.52%

ERTH

1D
-0.07%
1M
-5.77%
YTD
0.50%
6M
-0.68%
1Y
12.84%
3Y*
1.31%
5Y*
-5.80%
10Y*
7.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TAN vs. ERTH - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
TAN
Invesco Solar ETF
17.81%48.31%-37.61%-26.79%-5.24%-25.10%233.96%66.53%-25.67%54.38%
ERTH
Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF
0.50%18.47%-13.56%0.12%-27.59%2.64%51.02%36.78%-12.49%30.53%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and ERTH is 0.80, 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

0.80

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.81

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2008

0.74

The correlation between TAN and ERTH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. ERTH - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
TAN
ERTH

Technology

65.1%
10.9%

Energy

57.3%
7.1%

Utilities

29.2%
6.9%

Financial Services

3.5%
0.3%

Industrials

2.3%
19.2%

Basic Materials

-

5.3%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

14.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.8%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

27.4%

Technology

TAN
65.1%
ERTH
10.9%

Energy

TAN
57.3%
ERTH
7.1%

Utilities

TAN
29.2%
ERTH
6.9%

Financial Services

TAN
3.5%
ERTH
0.3%

Industrials

TAN
2.3%
ERTH
19.2%

Basic Materials

TAN

-

ERTH
5.3%

Communication Services

TAN

-

ERTH

-

Consumer Cyclical

TAN

-

ERTH
14.0%

Consumer Defensive

TAN

-

ERTH
1.8%

Healthcare

TAN

-

ERTH

-

Real Estate

TAN

-

ERTH
27.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

TAN vs. ERTH — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN
TAN Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

ERTH
ERTH Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
ERTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ERTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
ERTH Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
ERTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
ERTH Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ERTH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH). 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.


TANERTHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.14

+0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.37

1.60

+1.78

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.58

3.99

+6.59

TAN vs. ERTH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the ERTH Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and ERTH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

TAN vs. ERTH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than ERTH's maximum drawdown of -64.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and ERTH.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TANERTHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-95.29%

-64.45%

-30.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.72%

-8.07%

-13.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-64.40%

-33.82%

-30.58%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-73.95%

-51.72%

-22.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-78.53%

-51.72%

-26.81%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-73.42%

-32.29%

-41.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-78.47%

-21.49%

-56.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.91%

3.22%

+3.69%

Volatility

TAN vs. ERTH - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 15.56% compared to Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF (ERTH) at 6.37%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ERTH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TANERTHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

15.56%

6.37%

+9.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

28.39%

12.91%

+15.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

38.32%

17.24%

+21.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

40.14%

22.96%

+17.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

38.15%

22.55%

+15.60%

TAN vs. ERTH - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than ERTH's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

TAN vs. ERTH - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ERTH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ERTH
Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF
1.93%1.46%1.00%1.28%1.22%15.33%0.21%0.71%0.61%0.87%1.06%0.79%
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


TAN and ERTH have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

TAN has higher volatility (15.56%) compared to ERTH (6.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs ERTH's -64.45%.

On 10-year performance, TAN leads with 12.52% vs 7.73% for ERTH. On fees, ERTH is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, ERTH has been the lower-risk option at 6.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, TAN has performed better with a 12.52% return vs 7.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ERTH is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

ERTH has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while ERTH tracks MSCI Global Environment Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.55% for ERTH.

TAN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 0.75), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for TAN and ERTH

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer