ZAP vs. ECLN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) and ECLN (First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF) are both Utilities Equities funds. ZAP is passively managed, while ECLN is actively managed. Over the past year, ZAP returned 28.84% vs 19.15% for ECLN. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZAP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for ECLN.

Performance

ZAP vs. ECLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZAP achieves a 15.14% return, which is significantly higher than ECLN's 12.15% return.

ZAP

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -3.98%
• YTD: 15.14%
• 6M: 13.19%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ECLN

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -2.95%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 6M: 10.16%
• 1Y: 19.15%
• 3Y*: 17.15%
• 5Y*: 11.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

ZAP vs. ECLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	15.14%	21.84%	1.26%
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	12.15%	16.78%	1.79%

Correlation

The correlation between ZAP and ECLN is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.83

The correlation between ZAP and ECLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ZAP vs. ECLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 60
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 52
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 58

ECLN

ECLN Risk / Return Rank: 59
ECLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
ECLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ECLN Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ECLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ECLN Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

ZAP vs. ECLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) and First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN). 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.

	ZAP	ECLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	1.83	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.68	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	3.83	+0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.25	10.36	-0.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZAP vs. ECLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZAP Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the ECLN Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZAP and ECLN, 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

	ZAP	ECLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	1.83	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.84	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.67	+0.96

Drawdowns

ZAP vs. ECLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZAP drawdown since its inception was -12.38%, smaller than the maximum ECLN drawdown of -32.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZAP and ECLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZAP	ECLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.38%	-32.28%	+19.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-5.02%	-2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.88%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.11%	-3.65%	-0.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.57%	-4.99%	+2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	1.86%	+0.97%

Volatility

ZAP vs. ECLN - Volatility Comparison

Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP) has a higher volatility of 6.28% compared to First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF (ECLN) at 3.85%. This indicates that ZAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZAP	ECLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.28%	3.85%	+2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.74%	8.15%	+3.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.13%	10.51%	+4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.91%	14.22%	+2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	17.41%	-0.50%

ZAP vs. ECLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZAP has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than ECLN's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZAP vs. ECLN - Dividend Comparison

ZAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, less than ECLN's 1.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECLN First Trust EIP Carbon Impact ETF	1.83%	1.97%	2.52%	2.54%	1.72%	1.66%	1.68%	0.71%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.55%	1.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZAP and ECLN in my portfolio?

ZAP and ECLN have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZAP or ECLN?

ZAP has higher volatility (6.28%) compared to ECLN (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZAP dropped -12.38% vs ECLN's -32.28%.

Which ETF is better, ZAP or ECLN?

On 1-year performance, ZAP leads with 28.84% vs 19.15% for ECLN. On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ECLN has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZAP or ECLN?

Over the 1-year period, ZAP has performed better with a 28.84% return vs 19.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZAP or ECLN?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for ECLN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZAP or ECLN?

ECLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 1.55% for ZAP.

What is the main difference between ZAP and ECLN?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for ZAP and 0.97% for ECLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.83), 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.