GRID
Safe
High confidence
ETF Comparison
GRID vs ZAP: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?
A head-to-head comparison of First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF covering yield, cost, risk, and income potential.
Updated November 6, 2026
How these figures are calculated: methodology.
Best for
- GRIDInvestors who want targeted infrastructure exposure and accept its concentration.
- ZAPInvestors who want higher current income (1.94% vs 0.92% for GRID).
Price and total return
Compare the same available dates. Add a ticker or benchmark below; these controls change the chart only. The snapshot and article describe the original comparison.
Interactive history loads here. The snapshot and period returns remain available when chart history cannot be loaded.
Distribution Safety Score
An estimate of distribution reliability, not price or principal safety, a probability, or a guarantee. Score methodology.
ZAP
Safe
High confidence
Score snapshot as of . Method 1.11.
Side-by-side snapshot
| Metric |  GRID |  ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund | Global X U.S. Electrification ETF |
| Issuer | First Trust | Global X |
| Last Close | $154.21 as of November 6, 2026 | $30.92 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | 0.92% | 1.94% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 1.00% | 1.92% |
| 30-day SEC yield | — | 2.14% |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 83 | 97 |
| Safety-Adjusted Yield | 0.76% | 1.88% |
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.50% |
| AUM | $11.3B | $445M |
| Distribution frequency | Quarterly | Quarterly |
| Underlying index | Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index | — |
| Objective | Seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield of the Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index. | — |
| Asset class | Equity | Equity |
| Inception date | 11/16/2009 | 12/17/2024 |
| Beta | 1.42 | 0.6103 |
| Last dividend | $0.353 | $0.15 |
| Ex-dividend date | 09/24/2026 | 10/05/2026 |
Total returns
100% reinvested · ex-date convention. Period returns use this fixed assumption, independent of chart settings. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year.
GRID has lagged ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a -2.44% total return against 2.43%. Measured from Dec 2024 — the start of shared available history — ZAP has compounded at 16.03% a year versus 14.71% for GRID. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.8% against 26.0% for GRID. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | 1Y cumulative | Since Dec 2024 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRID | 0.00% | -2.44% | 14.71% | 26.0% | -0.25 | -0.33 | -23.5% |
| ZAP | 7.21% | 2.43% | 16.03% | 16.8% | -0.10 | -0.14 | -13.0% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date (a modeling convention, not the cash-settlement date), split-adjusted, as of November 5, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative period returns; 3Y, 5Y, and 10Y are annualized. The shared Since-start window is annualized only when it covers at least one year. “Since Dec 2024” measures every fund from December 18, 2024 — the start of shared available history — so all funds share one comparison window. Volatility is the annualized standard deviation of daily total returns over the past year. Sharpe and Sortino divide the annualized return in excess of the risk-free rate by, respectively, that volatility and the downside deviation (both over the past year) — higher is better. Max drawdown is the largest peak-to-trough total-return decline over the same window — shallower is better.
Distribution rate and SEC yield
| Metric | GRID | ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Forward distribution rate | 0.92% | 1.94% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 1.00% | 1.92% |
| 30-day SEC yield | — | 2.14% |
Total return (price change plus reinvested distributions) is the Total returns section above. A 30-day SEC yield can sit far from the headline distribution rate; both numbers are the fund's own published fields.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Bottom lineChoose GRID if you want targeted infrastructure exposure and accept its concentration. Choose ZAP if you want higher current income (1.94% vs 0.92% for GRID).
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs329
Total AUM$290B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
First Trust is known for offering a diverse lineup of actively and passively managed ETFs across multiple investment styles and asset classes. Their fund families span income-focused strategies including dividend and covered call approaches, as well as thematic, factor-based, alternatives, and sector-specific offerings that appeal to different investor objectives. The issuer provides breadth across allocation, bond, buffer, commodities, and municipal fund categories, making them a comprehensive provider serving various portfolio construction and income-generation needs.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on GRID.
ETFs116
Total AUM$89.1B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for offering a diverse lineup of thematic and income-focused ETFs that cater to both traditional and alternative investment strategies. Their fund families span income generation through covered call strategies and SuperDividend funds, alongside thematic exposure in areas like digital assets, robotics, and emerging markets, complemented by bond and commodities offerings. The issuer provides broad coverage across sector-specific, risk-managed, and growth-oriented strategies, making their lineup particularly notable for investors seeking specialized exposure beyond conventional equity and fixed-income categories.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on ZAP.
Quick verdict
GRID (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both quarterly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
ZAP offers the higher yield at 1.94% vs 0.92% for GRID. A higher yield means more current income per dollar invested, though it may come with different risk characteristics.
ZAP is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.50% compared to 0.56%.
GRID is the larger fund by assets ($11.3B), but assets alone do not establish trading costs or liquidity.
Top-holdings overlap
Positions that appear in every fund's top 10. Issuers disclose only the largest weights, so this captures the overlap of the concentrated end of each book — not the full portfolios.
1 shared position
GRID 7.9% of its top-10 weight
ZAP 4.1% of its top-10 weight
| Position | GRID | ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| ETN Eaton Corporation PLC |
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at current distribution rates, GRID would pay about $92.00 a year (about $23.00 per quarterly distribution), while ZAP would pay about $194.00 a year (about $48.50 per quarterly distribution). Both pay quarterly distributions.
GRID yield0.92%
ZAP yield1.94%
Annual cash diff on $10K$102.00
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, GRID would cost approximately $560 in fees vs $500 for ZAP (simplified, not compounded). The $60.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
GRID ER0.56%
ZAP ER0.50%
Strategy & risk
GRID tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index with an electrification approach. ZAP is an ETF whose tracked index or strategy detail is not recorded in our data, so this comparison rests on the measured figures — yield, fees, size, and performance — rather than strategy labels. Beta is 1.42 for GRID and 0.6103 for ZAP, making ZAP the less sensitive to market moves of the two by this measure.
GRID beta1.42
ZAP beta0.6103
Fund details
GRID is managed by First Trust (launched 11/16/2009) with $11.3B in assets. ZAP is managed by Global X (launched 12/17/2024) with $445M in assets.
GRID AUM$11.3B
ZAP AUM$445M
Frequently asked questions
What is the current distribution rate for GRID and ZAP?
GRID currently distributes 0.92% and ZAP 1.94%, based on fund data updated November 2026. Distribution rate moves with both the payout and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.
Is GRID or ZAP better for dividend income?
It depends on your goals. ZAP currently offers the higher distribution yield, which means more income per dollar invested. However, a lower-yield fund may offer better total return or lower volatility. Consider your time horizon and risk tolerance.
What is the difference between GRID and ZAP?
GRID (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index Fund) tracks Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index with an electrification approach. ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) is an ETF whose tracked index or strategy detail is not recorded in our data, so this comparison rests on the measured figures — yield, fees, size, and performance — rather than strategy labels. They are issued by First Trust and Global X respectively.
Can I hold both GRID and ZAP?
Yes. Their disclosed top-10 holdings share only 1 position, so combining both adds mostly distinct underlying names — see the holdings-overlap section above. Overlap outside the disclosed top 10 can still exist.
Is GRID or ZAP safer?
By Dividend Vision's Distribution Safety Score — a rules-based 0–100 estimate of how resilient a distribution looks, where higher is safer — ZAP scores 97, GRID scores 83, so ZAP's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. ZAP has also been less sensitive to market moves (beta 0.61 vs 1.42 for GRID). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.
Which has lower fees, GRID or ZAP?
GRID has an expense ratio of 0.56% while ZAP charges 0.50%. Lower fees mean more of your investment returns stay in your pocket over time.
How much income does $10,000 in GRID vs ZAP generate?
At current distribution rates, $10,000 in GRID would pay about $92.00 a year (about $23.00 per quarterly distribution). $10,000 in ZAP would pay about $194.00 a year (about $48.50 per quarterly distribution).
Which has performed better historically, GRID or ZAP?
GRID has lagged ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a -2.44% total return against 2.43%. Measured from Dec 2024 — the start of shared available history — ZAP has compounded at 16.03% a year versus 14.71% for GRID. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.8% against 26.0% for GRID. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare GRID with
People also compare ZAP with
Popular comparisons
GRID vs ZAP — at a glance
Generated October 31, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
GRID and ZAP are both equity ETFs focused on the electrification and infrastructure transition, but they serve different investor appetites. GRID tracks a smart-grid-specific index with utilities and infrastructure as the core holding, while ZAP casts a wider net across U.S. electrification including utilities, industrials, and related technologies. The key difference is scope: GRID is narrower (smart grid infrastructure) and more established, while ZAP is newer and broader in its electrification mandate.
How they differ
GRID and ZAP's biggest distinction is their underlying strategy and asset base. GRID tracks the Nasdaq Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure Index and holds $11.3B, while ZAP pursues a broader U.S. electrification thesis with $445M—a roughly 25-fold difference in scale. On yield, ZAP offers 1.94%, compared to GRID's 0.92%, a 104 basis-point gap. Both distribute quarterly. ZAP's expense ratio of 0.50% undercuts GRID's 0.56% by 6 basis points. Market sensitivity differs meaningfully: GRID carries a beta of 1.42, suggesting notably higher sensitivity to equity market moves than ZAP's 0.6103. ZAP launched 12/17/2024, making it substantially newer than GRID's 11/16/2009 inception.
Who each is best for
GRID: Fits investors seeking focused exposure to smart-grid infrastructure and utilities who are comfortable with higher market sensitivity and accept a lower yield in exchange for a larger, more established fund with a decade-plus track record.
ZAP: Designed for electrification-themed allocators who prefer broader sector coverage across utilities and industrials, lower volatility relative to the broad market, and higher current income, accepting the tradeoff of a much smaller asset base and minimal operational history.
Key risks to know
- Index concentration and smart-grid focus (GRID): GRID's mandate is narrower than ZAP's. Holdings overlap heavily in utilities and may concentrate in a few dominant smart-grid plays; verify sector and company weightings before assuming diversification. Bid-ask spreads and redemption experience are unproven; the underlying electrification index lacks the long-term performance record GRID's methodology carries.
- Market-beta sensitivity (GRID): GRID's 1.42 means a broad market decline of 10% could produce an outsized loss; electrification and infrastructure stocks amplify equity-market downturns, particularly in early-cycle corrections.
- Yield sustainability and underlying earnings: 1.94% is high relative to typical equity funds; verify that ZAP's payouts reflect genuine earnings or dividends from holdings rather than return-of-capital erosion, particularly given its youth and unproven dividend consistency.
- Regulatory and rate-environment risk: Both funds depend on sustained infrastructure spending, favorable utility regulation, and low interest rates to support valuations. Policy shifts—delayed grid modernization budgets or higher utility borrowing costs—can pressure both holdings.
Bottom line
GRID offers scale, a longer track record, and narrow smart-grid focus; ZAP provides broader electrification exposure, lower volatility, and higher yield at the cost of minimal operating history and a much smaller fund. If you want an established smart-grid-focused holding, GRID's size and history stand out; if you prefer wider electrification coverage with lower market beta and higher income, ZAP merits investigation—though its newness means less certainty about dividend stability or bid-ask execution. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
Learn the method
The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.
These comparisons follow the Dividend Vision methodology.