Quick Read
-
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) returned 22.13% year-to-date and 91.23% over twelve months by focusing on utilities and electricity generators, while Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) returned 34.64% year-to-date and 129.89% over twelve months by betting on the broader clean energy value chain including EV makers, battery developers, and hydrogen companies.
-
PBW outperforms in risk-on environments due to exposure to small-cap growth names, while CNRG provides downside protection with regulated utility cash flows that benefit when interest rates spike or recession risk resurfaces.
-
The analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 stocks and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF wasn't one of them. Get them here FREE .
The SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF( NYSEARCA:CNRG ) and the Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF( NYSEARCA:PBW ) both sit in the clean energy aisle, but they are not interchangeable. Year to date, CNRG has returned 22.13% while PBW has returned 34.64%. Over the past twelve months the gap widens further: CNRG is up 91.23% against PBW's 129.89%. The difference is mandate.
What Each Fund Is Actually Betting On
CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index and concentrates on companies that physically produce clean electricity: solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal generators alongside the utilities that own them. The implicit bet is that decarbonization shows up as megawatts on the grid, financed at a sensible cost of capital. That bet is rate-sensitive. With the 10-year Treasury at 4.46% and the 30-year at 5.03%, discount rates on long-duration generation cash flows are heavy.
The analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 stocks and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF wasn't one of them. Get them here FREE .
PBW tracks the WilderHill Clean Energy Index, which spreads across the full value chain: EV makers, battery developers, hydrogen and fuel-cell names, smart-grid hardware, and efficiency tech. Many constituents are small-cap, pre-profit, and highly correlated to risk appetite. The bet is on technology adoption curves rather than utility ratebases. That makes PBW a growth proxy as much as a clean energy fund.
Where the Difference Shows Up
The clean energy drawdown of 2021 through 2022 is the cleanest test. From January 4, 2021 to December 30, 2022, CNRG fell 23.12%. PBW fell 61.22% over the same window. The five-year picture still reflects that wound: PBW is down 35.74% while CNRG is up 25.89%. PBW wins on the way up. CNRG protects on the way down.
The Practical Comparison
| Metric |
CNRG |
PBW |
|---|---|---|
| YTD 2026 |
22.13% |
34.64% |
| 1-Year |
91.23% |
129.89% |
| 5-Year |
25.89% |
-35.74% |
| 2021-22 Drawdown |
-23.12% |
-61.22% |
| Mandate |
Pure-play clean power generation |
Broad clean energy value chain |
The Verdict
PBW is the better fit for an investor who wants leveraged exposure to risk-on clean tech and can tolerate the kind of 60%-plus drawdown the fund has already delivered once this decade. CNRG fits an investor who wants clean energy as an infrastructure allocation: lower beta, utility-heavy, tied to electricity demand rather than venture-stage technology stories. Right now PBW is winning because small-cap risk is bid and the broader mandate captures EV, hydrogen, and battery names that CNRG simply does not own. What flips the call is a rate shock or a return of recession risk. In that environment, CNRG's regulated cash flows look defensive, and PBW's speculative tail becomes the problem rather than the prize.
The analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 AI stocks
This analyst's 2025 picks are up 106% on average. He just named his top 10 stocks to buy in 2026. Get them here FREE .
