ETFs7
Total AUM$1.03B
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.
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.
Data updated July 23, 2026
ETFs120
Total AUM$93.1B
ETFs and AUM reflect what Dividend Vision tracks — the issuer's full lineup may be larger.
Global X is known for developing thematic and alternative investment ETFs with a strong emphasis on income-generating strategies. Their 37-fund lineup spans diverse categories including covered call funds, SuperDividend income products, digital assets, commodities, and sector-specific investments, alongside traditional bond and risk-managed income options. Notable tickers like DIV, MLPA, and BCCC reflect their specialization in high-yield and alternative income strategies, positioning them as a provider focused on investors seeking yield-oriented and thematically-driven exposure.
See our curated list of related YouTube videos on ZAP.
Side-by-side snapshot
| PWER | ZAP | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Nomura Energy Transition ETF | Global X U.S. Electrification ETF |
| Issuer | Macquarie | Global X |
| Last Close | $41.52 as of July 23, 2026 | $33.95 as of July 23, 2026 |
| Distribution yield | 0.59% | 1.98% |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 92 | 50 |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.50% |
| AUM | $11.2M | $464M |
| 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 | $0.0610 | $0.1680 |
| Ex-dividend date | 06/22/2026 | 07/06/2026 |
Bottom lineChoose PWER if you want broad equity exposure. Choose ZAP if you want higher current income (1.98% vs 0.59% for PWER).
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
Want to go deeper?
Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — no signup required.
Visual comparison
Key metrics
Projected income on $10K
Projections assume the current yield and share price remain constant. Actual results will vary.
Total returns
PWER has outpaced ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a 42.42% total return against 24.47%. Measured from Nov 2023 — when the younger fund began trading — ZAP has compounded at 26.49% a year versus 22.21% for PWER. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 15.5% against 21.6% for PWER. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD | 1Y | Since Nov 2023 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWER | 16.48% | 42.42% | 22.21% | 21.6% | 1.43 | 2.02 | -13.7% |
| ZAP | 15.64% | 24.47% | 26.49% | 15.5% | 1.12 | 1.61 | -7.2% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date, split-adjusted, as of July 23, 2026. YTD and 1Y are cumulative; longer windows are annualized. “Since Nov 2023” measures every fund from November 29, 2023 — the youngest fund's first trading day — 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.
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 offers the higher yield at 1.98% vs 0.59% for PWER. 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 0.79%.
ZAP is the larger fund by assets ($464M), which generally means tighter spreads and better liquidity.
Still deciding? Track PWER & ZAP for free
Create a free Dividend Vision account to keep them on a watchlist, get notified when they declare dividends, and see how much income they would add to your portfolio.
Deep dive
Yield & income
On a $10,000 investment, PWER would generate roughly $4.92/month, while ZAP would produce $16.50/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay quarterly distributions.
PWER yield0.59%
ZAP yield1.98%
Monthly diff on $10K$11.58
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, indicating ZAP is less volatile relative to the market.
PWER beta1.0111
ZAP beta0.6103
Fund details
PWER is managed by Macquarie (launched 11/28/2023) with $11.2M in assets. ZAP is managed by Global X (launched 12/17/2024) with $464M in assets.
PWER AUM$11.2M
ZAP AUM$464M
Ready to act?
Enjoyed this page?
Do us a favor — if you found this comparison useful, please share it with a friend researching dividend ETFs.
Frequently asked questions
Is PWER 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 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 Macquarie and Global X respectively.
Can I hold both PWER and ZAP?
Yes — nothing prevents holding both. Whether the combination actually diversifies depends on how much the underlying exposures overlap, which isn't fully measurable from the data on this page; review each security's holdings, sector, and strategy before treating them as complementary.
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 current rates, $10,000 in PWER would generate roughly $4.92 per month ($59.00 annually). The same in ZAP would produce about $16.50 per month ($198.00 annually).
Which has performed better historically, PWER or ZAP?
PWER has outpaced ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a 42.42% total return against 24.47%. Measured from Nov 2023 — when the younger fund began trading — ZAP has compounded at 26.49% a year versus 22.21% for PWER. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 15.5% against 21.6% 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
Learn the method
The metrics behind this comparison, explained in the Academy.
Still deciding? Compare them against your own portfolio
See how each ETF fits alongside your real holdings — forecast future income, analyze overlap, and gauge risk. Start a free 7-day Dividend Vision trial and make the call with your full portfolio in view.