TAN vs. PWER

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. TAN is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, TAN returned 127.12% vs 75.33% for PWER. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

TAN vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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 PWER's 32.68% 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%

PWER

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: 8.29%
• YTD: 32.68%
• 6M: 36.54%
• 1Y: 75.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TAN vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	47.13%	48.31%	-37.61%	16.49%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	32.68%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.72%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and PWER is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.64

The correlation between TAN and PWER shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.64 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TAN vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	PWER
Energy	57.3%	41.1%
Utilities	22.1%	1.9%
Technology	9.7%	3.8%
Financial Services	3.6%	-
Industrials	3.3%	12.2%
Basic Materials	-	41.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. PWER — 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

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 94
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 92
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.44	3.84	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	4.67	-0.73
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.62	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.06	8.57	+0.49
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.01	35.48	-13.48
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. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 3.44, which is comparable to the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 3.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and PWER, 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44	3.84	-0.40
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	1.26	-1.38

Drawdowns

TAN vs. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-29.68%	-65.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.62%	-9.07%	-4.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	—	—
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%	0.00%	-66.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.51%	-6.23%	-72.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.61%	2.19%	+3.42%

Volatility

TAN vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 11.81% compared to Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) at 6.08%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.81%	6.08%	+5.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.30%	15.50%	+9.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.21%	19.73%	+17.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.74%	23.38%	+16.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.98%	23.38%	+14.60%

TAN vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PWER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	1.04%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	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 PWER in my portfolio?

TAN and PWER have a correlation of 0.51, 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 PWER?

TAN has higher volatility (11.81%) compared to PWER (6.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or PWER?

On 1-year performance, TAN leads with 127.12% vs 75.33% for PWER. On fees, TAN is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 6.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, TAN has performed better with a 127.12% return vs 75.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or PWER?

TAN is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

PWER has the higher dividend yield at 1.04%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 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.