TAN vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. TAN is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TAN returned 0.29%/yr vs 10.83%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

TAN vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) 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, TAN achieves a 47.13% return, which is significantly higher than FRNW's 36.72% return.

TAN

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: 21.93%
• YTD: 47.13%
• 6M: 51.73%
• 1Y: 127.12%
• 3Y*: 0.29%
• 5Y*: -0.77%
• 10Y*: 13.81%

FRNW

• 1D: 1.50%
• 1M: 9.12%
• YTD: 36.72%
• 6M: 36.40%
• 1Y: 93.83%
• 3Y*: 10.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TAN vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	47.13%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-3.06%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	36.72%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and FRNW is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.91

The correlation between TAN and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	FRNW
Energy	57.3%	21.0%
Utilities	22.1%	43.3%
Technology	9.7%	5.5%
Financial Services	3.6%	-
Industrials	3.3%	30.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 89
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 92
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) 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.

	TAN	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.44	3.70	-0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	4.35	-0.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.55	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.06	8.02	+1.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.01	25.07	-3.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TAN vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 3.44, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 3.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN 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

	TAN	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44	3.70	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.02	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.37	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.12	0.10	-0.22

Drawdowns

TAN vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-59.37%	-35.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.62%	-11.58%	-2.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	-45.27%	-19.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-66.81%	-1.27%	-65.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.51%	-33.36%	-45.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.61%	3.70%	+1.91%

Volatility

TAN vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 11.81% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 7.90%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.81%	7.90%	+3.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.30%	17.85%	+7.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.21%	25.52%	+11.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.74%	28.35%	+11.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.98%	28.35%	+9.63%

TAN vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.92%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 FRNW in my portfolio?

TAN and FRNW have a correlation of 0.85, 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 FRNW?

TAN has higher volatility (11.81%) compared to FRNW (7.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 10.83% vs 0.29% for TAN. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 7.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 10.83% return vs 0.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.70 vs 3.44), 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.