PWER
Generally safe
Limited data
ETF Comparison
PWER vs ZAP: Which Is the Better Pick in 2026?
A head-to-head comparison of Nomura Energy Transition ETF 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
- PWERInvestors who want targeted energy exposure and accept its concentration.
- ZAPInvestors who want higher current income (1.92% paid over the past 12 months vs 1.16% for PWER).
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 |  PWER |  ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Nomura Energy Transition ETF | Global X U.S. Electrification ETF |
| Issuer | Nomura | Global X |
| Last Close | $42.16 as of November 6, 2026 | $30.92 as of November 6, 2026 |
| Distribution rate | 2.14% | 1.94% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 1.16% | 1.92% |
| 30-day SEC yield | — | 2.14% |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 74 | 97 |
| Safety-Adjusted Yield | 1.58% | 1.88% |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.50% |
| AUM | $12.1M | $445M |
| Distribution frequency | Quarterly | Quarterly |
| Underlying index | — | — |
| Objective | — | — |
| Asset class | Equity | Equity |
| Inception date | 11/28/2023 | 12/17/2024 |
| Beta | 1.0111 | 0.6103 |
| Last dividend | $0.226 | $0.15 |
| Ex-dividend date | 09/21/2026 | 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.
PWER has outpaced ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a 28.38% total return against 2.43%. Measured from Dec 2024 — the start of shared available history — PWER has compounded at 30.60% a year versus 16.03% for ZAP. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.8% against 22.2% for PWER. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD cumulative | 1Y cumulative | Since Dec 2024 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWER | 20.31% | 28.38% | 30.60% | 22.2% | 0.95 | 1.31 | -13.7% |
| 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 | PWER | ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Forward distribution rate | 2.14% | 1.94% |
| Trailing 12-month yield | 1.16% | 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 PWER if you want targeted energy exposure and accept its concentration. Choose ZAP if you want higher current income (1.92% paid over the past 12 months vs 1.16% for PWER).
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs8
Total AUM$747M
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on PWER.
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
PWER (Nomura Energy Transition ETF) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both quarterly-pay dividend ETFs, but they take different approaches.
ZAP has paid the higher yield over the past 12 months, 1.92% vs 1.16% for PWER. We compare trailing 12-month yields here because PWER's latest distribution annualizes to 2.14% against 1.16% actually paid over the past 12 months, so annualizing a single payment would misstate its income.
ZAP is cheaper with an expense ratio of 0.50% compared to 0.79%.
ZAP is the larger fund by assets ($445M), 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.
2 shared positions
PWER 7.8% of its top-10 weight
ZAP 8.3% of its top-10 weight
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment at the rates paid over the past 12 months, PWER would pay about $116.00 a year (about $29.00 per quarterly distribution on average), while ZAP would pay about $192.00 a year (about $48.00 per quarterly distribution on average). Both pay quarterly distributions.
PWER 12-month yield1.16%
ZAP 12-month yield1.92%
Annual cash diff on $10K$76.00
Cost & efficiency
Over 10 years on $10,000, PWER would cost approximately $790 in fees vs $500 for ZAP (simplified, not compounded). The $290.00 difference may be offset by yield or performance.
PWER ER0.79%
ZAP ER0.50%
Strategy & risk
PWER is an ETF, while ZAP is an ETF. Beta is 1.0111 for PWER and 0.6103 for ZAP, making ZAP the less sensitive to market moves of the two by this measure.
PWER beta1.0111
ZAP beta0.6103
Fund details
PWER is managed by Nomura (launched 11/28/2023) with $12.1M in assets. ZAP is managed by Global X (launched 12/17/2024) with $445M in assets.
PWER AUM$12.1M
ZAP AUM$445M
Frequently asked questions
What is the current distribution rate for PWER and ZAP?
Over the past 12 months PWER paid 1.16% and ZAP 1.92%, based on fund data updated November 2026. We compare trailing 12-month yields here because PWER's latest distribution annualizes to 2.14% against 1.16% actually paid over the past 12 months, so annualizing a single payment would misstate its income. Yields move with both the payouts and the share price, so check the as-of date before relying on either figure.
Is PWER or ZAP better for dividend income?
It depends on your goals. ZAP has paid the higher trailing 12-month yield (1.92% vs 1.16%). We compare trailing 12-month yields here because PWER's latest distribution annualizes to 2.14% against 1.16% actually paid over the past 12 months, so annualizing a single payment would misstate its income. 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 PWER and ZAP?
PWER (Nomura Energy Transition ETF) is an ETF, while ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) is an ETF. They are issued by Nomura and Global X respectively.
Can I hold both PWER and ZAP?
Yes. Their disclosed top-10 holdings share only 2 positions, so combining both adds mostly distinct underlying names — see the holdings-overlap section above. Overlap outside the disclosed top 10 can still exist.
Is PWER 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, PWER scores 74, 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 1.01 for PWER). No score makes an investment risk-free — treat this as a screening signal, not a guarantee.
Which has lower fees, PWER or ZAP?
PWER has an expense ratio of 0.79% 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 PWER vs ZAP generate?
At the rates paid over the past 12 months, $10,000 in PWER would pay about $116.00 a year (about $29.00 per quarterly distribution on average). $10,000 in ZAP would pay about $192.00 a year (about $48.00 per quarterly distribution on average).
Which has performed better historically, PWER or ZAP?
PWER has outpaced ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a 28.38% total return against 2.43%. Measured from Dec 2024 — the start of shared available history — PWER has compounded at 30.60% a year versus 16.03% for ZAP. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.8% against 22.2% for PWER. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
More comparisons to explore
People also compare PWER with
People also compare ZAP with
Popular comparisons
PWER vs ZAP — at a glance
Generated October 31, 2026.
Overview
PWER and ZAP are equity ETFs focused on energy transition, but they target different segments of the sector. PWER (Nomura Energy Transition ETF) launched 11/28/2023 and tracks broad energy transition exposure with $12.1M in assets. ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) is newer, arriving 12/17/2024, and concentrates on U.S. electrification infrastructure across utilities, industrials, and related sectors.
How they differ
The key distinction is geography and scope: PWER appears globally diversified across energy transition themes, while ZAP narrows to U.S.-focused electrification. ZAP's beta of 0.6103 is notably lower than PWER's 1.0111, suggesting the electrification fund carries less sensitivity to broad equity market moves—a structural difference that may reflect ZAP's tilt toward defensive utilities and regulated infrastructure.
On fees, ZAP's 0.50% expense ratio undercuts PWER's 0.79% by 29 basis points. Distribution yields are close: PWER yields 2.14%, ZAP 1.94%, a gap of roughly 19 basis points. ZAP has materially larger asset base with $445M versus PWER's $12.1M.
Who each is best for
PWER: Fits investors seeking broad global exposure to energy transition themes and willing to accept higher market sensitivity in exchange for potential growth across diverse renewable, battery, and electrification opportunities worldwide.
ZAP: Designed for investors who want to focus on U.S. electrification infrastructure—utilities upgrading grids, industrial equipment makers, and related names—with lower stock-market correlation and stable yields from regulated or quasi-regulated businesses.
Key risks to know
- Concentration in energy transition narrative. Both funds are narrowly themed; performance hinges on sustained policy support, capex cycles, and valuations in electrification. A slowdown in green energy spending or technology shifts could pressure holdings across both.
- ZAP's recent inception. With a launch date of 12/17/2024, ZAP has minimal track record. The fund's actual behavior in a downturn, drawdown, or sector rotation remains untested.
- PWER's thin asset base. At $12.1M, PWER risks illiquidity and potential closures if assets continue to decline. Smaller funds face higher trading spreads and may merge or liquidate.
- Sector and regulatory risk. Energy transition and electrification face policy reversals, rate-setting changes for utilities, and cyclicality in industrial capex spending. ZAP's utilities and industrials overlap exposes it to these pressures.
- Overlapping holdings. Both funds may hold similar electrification and renewable energy companies, reducing diversification if held together.
Bottom line
If you want broad global energy transition exposure with higher growth potential, PWER's wider mandate appeals; if you prefer U.S. infrastructure electrification with lower market sensitivity and cheaper fees, ZAP's focus and 0.50% ratio stand out. ZAP's newer status and lighter AUM are trade-offs against its tighter cost structure. Past performance does not predict future results, and both funds' returns depend heavily on sustained energy transition investment cycles and policy environment.
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.