VPL vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

VPL (Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - VPL is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE Developed Asia Pacific Index, while RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares. VPL is passively managed, while RNWZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, VPL returned 20.80%/yr vs 11.78%/yr for RNWZ. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. VPL charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

VPL vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VPL achieves a 26.86% return, which is significantly higher than RNWZ's 15.40% return.

VPL

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 0.62%
• YTD: 26.86%
• 6M: 28.52%
• 1Y: 48.70%
• 3Y*: 20.80%
• 5Y*: 9.81%
• 10Y*: 10.83%

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: -1.79%
• YTD: 15.40%
• 6M: 17.62%
• 1Y: 34.43%
• 3Y*: 11.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

VPL vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
VPL Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF	26.86%	32.66%	1.68%	15.58%	-0.67%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	15.40%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between VPL and RNWZ is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2022	0.53

The correlation between VPL and RNWZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

VPL vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	VPL	RNWZ
Technology	22.6%	-
Industrials	20.5%	5.3%
Financial Services	19.3%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	-
Basic Materials	7.3%	4.8%
Healthcare	5.0%	-
Communication Services	4.8%	-
Real Estate	4.3%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	-
Energy	1.6%	3.9%
Utilities	1.6%	40.6%

Return for Risk

VPL vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

VPL

VPL Risk / Return Rank: 79
VPL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
VPL Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
VPL Omega Ratio Rank: 80
VPL Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
VPL Martin Ratio Rank: 80

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

VPL vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). 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.

	VPL	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.23	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	3.04	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.39	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	4.81	-1.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.60	12.90	+0.69

VPL vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VPL Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VPL and RNWZ, 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

VPL vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VPL drawdown since its inception was -55.49%, which is greater than RNWZ's maximum drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VPL and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	VPL	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.49%	-24.90%	-30.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.33%	-7.07%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.35%	-24.74%	+8.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.90%	-5.19%	+2.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.62%	-7.17%	-4.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	2.63%	+0.86%

Volatility

VPL vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL) has a higher volatility of 10.01% compared to TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) at 5.01%. This indicates that VPL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VPL	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.01%	5.01%	+5.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.75%	12.10%	+6.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.26%	15.25%	+6.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.98%	+0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.47%	16.98%	+0.49%

VPL vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

VPL has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RNWZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

VPL vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

VPL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.80%, more than RNWZ's 1.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.94%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VPL Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF	2.80%	4.01%	3.15%	3.12%	2.75%	3.19%	1.81%	2.84%	3.06%	2.57%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VPL and RNWZ in my portfolio?

VPL and RNWZ have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, VPL or RNWZ?

VPL has higher volatility (10.01%) compared to RNWZ (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VPL dropped -55.49% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, VPL or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, VPL leads with 20.80% vs 11.78% for RNWZ. On fees, VPL is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RNWZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, VPL or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, VPL has performed better with a 20.80% return vs 11.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, VPL or RNWZ?

VPL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, VPL or RNWZ?

VPL has the higher dividend yield at 2.80%, compared with 1.94% for RNWZ.

What is the main difference between VPL and RNWZ?

VPL is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while RNWZ is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and TrueShares. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for VPL and 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 2.23), 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.