TAN vs. RNRG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and RNRG (Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index while RNRG tracks the Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, TAN returned 9.52%/yr vs 2.46%/yr for RNRG. Their 0.60 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RNRG.

Performance

TAN vs. RNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 0.43% return, which is significantly lower than RNRG's 4.23% return. Over the past 10 years, TAN has outperformed RNRG with an annualized return of 9.52%, while RNRG has yielded a comparatively lower 2.46% annualized return.

TAN

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: -8.39%
• YTD: 0.43%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: -9.55%
• 5Y*: -10.35%
• 10Y*: 9.52%
• ALL TIME*: -7.13%

RNRG

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -2.37%
• 6M: -3.29%
• YTD: 4.23%
• 1Y: 17.23%
• 3Y*: 0.26%
• 5Y*: -5.50%
• 10Y*: 2.46%
• ALL TIME*: 0.25%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	$473.71K	$298.66K	$326.77K
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	$66.73M	$50.86M	$87.18M

TAN vs. RNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.43%	48.31%	-37.61%	-26.79%	-5.24%	-25.10%	233.96%	66.53%	-25.67%	54.38%
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	4.23%	29.61%	-22.00%	-12.82%	-15.30%	-12.78%	26.67%	37.04%	-6.22%	21.16%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and RNRG is 0.60, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.68
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2015	0.60

The correlation between TAN and RNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. RNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	RNRG
Technology	29.8%	2.5%
Energy	20.4%	-
Utilities	4.8%	92.8%
Financial Services	4.4%	-
Industrials	1.7%	3.0%
Basic Materials	-	1.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. RNRG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 34
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 34
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 33

RNRG

RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 41
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 41
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 39

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TAN vs. RNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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	RNRG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	1.10	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	1.59	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.19	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.96	1.20	-0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.14	4.10	-0.96

TAN vs. RNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is comparable to the RNRG Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and RNRG, 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. RNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than RNRG's maximum drawdown of -58.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and RNRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	RNRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-58.79%	-36.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.51%	-14.75%	-20.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.70%	-30.62%	-28.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	-52.17%	-21.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	-58.79%	-19.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-77.35%	-38.32%	-39.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.45%	-24.60%	-53.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.87%	4.32%	+6.55%

Volatility

TAN vs. RNRG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 11.99% compared to Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) at 4.78%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	RNRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.99%	4.78%	+7.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.71%	12.85%	+16.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.21%	16.09%	+23.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.14%	20.12%	+20.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.27%	19.56%	+18.71%

TAN vs. RNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than RNRG's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. RNRG - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RNRG Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF	1.71%	1.50%	1.48%	1.44%	1.15%	1.10%	3.16%	2.97%	5.22%	4.14%	5.02%	3.48%
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 RNRG in my portfolio?

TAN and RNRG have a correlation of 0.60, 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 RNRG?

TAN has higher volatility (11.99%) compared to RNRG (4.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs RNRG's -58.79%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or RNRG?

On 10-year performance, TAN leads with 9.52% vs 2.46% for RNRG. On fees, RNRG is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, RNRG has been the lower-risk option at 4.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or RNRG?

Over the 10-year period, TAN has performed better with a 9.52% return vs 2.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or RNRG?

RNRG is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

RNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.71%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and RNRG?

TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.65% for RNRG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNRG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.10 vs 0.87), 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.