VCLN vs. FRNW

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

VCLN (Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - VCLN is a Sustainable fund actively managed by Virtus, while FRNW is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, VCLN returned 11.69%/yr vs 4.60%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. VCLN charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

VCLN vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN) 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, VCLN achieves a 8.22% return, which is significantly lower than FRNW's 10.45% return.

VCLN

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: -7.57%
• 6M: -2.03%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 1Y: 36.06%
• 3Y*: 11.69%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.52%

FRNW

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -5.87%
• 6M: -0.30%
• YTD: 10.45%
• 1Y: 35.77%
• 3Y*: 4.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.59%

*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)
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	$628.98K	$1.05M	$2.64M
VCLN Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF	$17.58K	$17.76K	$37.65K

VCLN vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
VCLN Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF	8.22%	55.75%	-6.69%	-17.54%	-7.87%	0.43%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	10.45%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between VCLN and FRNW is 0.68, 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.	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.86

The correlation between VCLN and FRNW shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.86 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

VCLN vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	VCLN	FRNW
Industrials	37.2%	34.0%
Utilities	34.5%	42.0%
Technology	27.4%	23.1%
Energy	0.9%	8.2%
Basic Materials	-	0.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

VCLN vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

VCLN

VCLN Risk / Return Rank: 45
VCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
VCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
VCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 45
VCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
VCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 44

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 48
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

VCLN vs. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN) 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.

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.

	VCLN	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.28	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	1.82	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.22	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	1.60	-0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.92	5.16	-0.24

VCLN vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VCLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VCLN 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.

Drawdowns

VCLN vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VCLN drawdown since its inception was -45.66%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VCLN and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	VCLN	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.66%	-59.37%	+13.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.50%	-22.08%	-4.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.50%	-39.17%	+12.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.13%	-20.24%	-2.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.80%	-32.71%	+8.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.46%	6.83%	+0.63%

Volatility

VCLN vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF (VCLN) has a higher volatility of 9.98% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 8.48%. This indicates that VCLN'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

	VCLN	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.98%	8.48%	+1.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.12%	20.82%	+2.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.71%	27.75%	+3.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.79%	28.55%	-0.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.79%	28.55%	-0.76%

VCLN vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

VCLN has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

VCLN vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

VCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%, more than FRNW's 1.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.24%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%
VCLN Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF	1.93%	2.01%	1.16%	1.14%	0.65%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VCLN and FRNW in my portfolio?

VCLN and FRNW have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, VCLN or FRNW?

VCLN has higher volatility (9.98%) compared to FRNW (8.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VCLN dropped -45.66% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, VCLN or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, VCLN leads with 11.69% vs 4.60% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 8.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, VCLN or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, VCLN has performed better with a 11.69% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, VCLN or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for VCLN.

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

VCLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 1.24% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between VCLN and FRNW?

VCLN is categorized as Sustainable, while FRNW is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Virtus and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for VCLN and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs 1.16), 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.