ETFs7
Total AUM$1.05B
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 August 13, 2026
Best for
- PWERInvestors who want broad equity exposure.
- ZAPInvestors who want higher current income (2.04% vs 0.54% for PWER).
Side-by-side snapshot
| Metric | PWER | ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Nomura Energy Transition ETF | Global X U.S. Electrification ETF |
| Issuer | Macquarie | Global X |
| Last Close | $45.52 as of August 13, 2026 | $32.96 as of August 13, 2026 |
| Distribution yield | 0.54% | 2.04% |
| Distribution Safety Score™ | 92 | 50 |
| Expense ratio | 0.79% | 0.50% |
| AUM | $12.6M | $469M |
| 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 (2.04% vs 0.54% for PWER).
Model this comparison:
Income calculator
See how much monthly income a hypothetical investment would generate in each ETF at current yields.
ETFs118
Total AUM$96.8B
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.
Want to go deeper?
Add these ETFs to a sample portfolio and forecast your dividend income over 5+ years — free to start, no credit card.
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 58.03% total return against 19.08%. Measured from Nov 2023 — when the younger fund began trading — PWER has compounded at 25.93% a year versus 23.28% for ZAP. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.0% against 21.8% for PWER. Figures are total returns: price change plus every distribution reinvested.
| Symbol | YTD | 1Y | Since Nov 2023 | Volatility | Sharpe | Sortino | Max drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWER | 27.71% | 58.03% | 25.93% | 21.8% | 1.90 | 2.73 | -13.7% |
| ZAP | 12.27% | 19.08% | 23.28% | 16.0% | 0.81 | 1.16 | -8.2% |
Total return with all distributions reinvested on the ex-dividend date, split-adjusted, as of August 12, 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 2.04% vs 0.54% 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 ($469M), 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 $4.50/month, while ZAP would produce $17.00/month, at current distribution rates. Both pay quarterly distributions.
PWER yield0.54%
ZAP yield2.04%
Monthly diff on $10K$12.50
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 $12.6M in assets. ZAP is managed by Global X (launched 12/17/2024) with $469M in assets.
PWER AUM$12.6M
ZAP AUM$469M
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
What is the current distribution yield for PWER and ZAP?
PWER currently distributes 0.54% and ZAP 2.04%, based on fund data updated August 2026. Distribution yield moves with both the payout 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 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.
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 — PWER scores 92, ZAP scores 50, so PWER's payout currently looks the more resilient of the two. ZAP has also shown lower price volatility (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 current rates, $10,000 in PWER would generate roughly $4.50 per month ($54.00 annually). The same in ZAP would produce about $17.00 per month ($204.00 annually).
Which has performed better historically, PWER or ZAP?
PWER has outpaced ZAP over the trailing twelve months, posting a 58.03% total return against 19.08%. Measured from Nov 2023 — when the younger fund began trading — PWER has compounded at 25.93% a year versus 23.28% for ZAP. ZAP has been the steadier holding, though — annualized volatility of 16.0% against 21.8% 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 August 8, 2026.
Overview
PWER and ZAP are both equity ETFs targeting the energy transition theme, but they pursue it differently. PWER, launched in November 2023, focuses on companies advancing energy transition across sectors through Nomura's methodology. ZAP, which began trading in December 2024, narrows the lens to U.S. electrification—the shift toward electric power in transportation, heating, and industrial processes—drawing from utilities, industrials, and related segments.
How they differ
The fundamental split is geographic and thematic scope. PWER is a global energy transition fund, while ZAP is U.S.-only and electrification-specific, which should lead to different sector tilts and company exposures. ZAP's beta of 0.6103 is materially lower than PWER's 1.0111, suggesting ZAP's holdings have historically moved less than the broader market—likely reflecting a heavier weighting toward regulated utilities and established industrial names. The yield gap is substantial: ZAP distributes 2.06% quarterly versus PWER's 0.55%, a difference that may reflect ZAP's utility exposure (which tends to pay dividends) against PWER's broader transition holdings. Cost-wise, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% expense ratio versus PWER's 0.79%, though PWER has considerably higher AUM ($12.0M vs. $468M) and a longer operating history.
Who each is best for
PWER: Fits investors seeking exposure to global energy transition themes without a geographic constraint, willing to accept market-level volatility and lower current yield in exchange for broader company and region selection across the decarbonization trend.
ZAP: Designed for investors focused specifically on U.S. electrification trends and who favor lower portfolio volatility alongside a modestly higher income component, typically drawn to utility and industrial plays tied to the power grid and vehicle electrification.
Key risks to know
- Sector concentration: Both funds are thematic plays, but ZAP's narrower focus on electrification and U.S. exposure introduces concentration risk versus a true broad-market hedge. Verify holdings overlap to assess redundancy in your portfolio.
- Beta divergence and drawdown risk: ZAP's low beta (0.6103) may cushion downturns but could also lag in sustained market rallies; PWER's near-market beta (1.0111) will move more closely with broad equity cycles, amplifying losses in corrections.
- Valuation sensitivity to energy and policy shifts: Both funds depend on the energy transition narrative and policy support. A major shift in renewable subsidies, grid investment timelines, or commodity prices could reprice either fund significantly, particularly the thematically concentrated ZAP.
- Liquidity and asset base: PWER's $12.0M AUM is quite small and was only a year old at the time of this data; ZAP's $468M is healthier but still modest. Smaller funds carry reinvestment and closure risk if assets don't grow.
Bottom line
ZAP offers lower cost, higher income, and lower market sensitivity if you're specifically bullish on U.S. electrification and utilities. PWER casts a wider net globally and maintains market-level risk exposure, which fits investors seeking broader energy transition upside without a U.S. or sector limit. Both are recent launches with modest asset bases; neither's track record is long enough to predict performance with confidence. Review holdings to confirm they don't duplicate existing transition exposure in your portfolio.
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.
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.