GNR ranks 2nd and PWER 13th of 14 funds in the Natural Resources Category.
GNR vs PWER
GNR −0.39pt a year
0.40%0.79%
GNR 354.4×the volume
341K962
GNR vs PWER Performance
+31.9%+31.8%
- GNR 0.40%, better
- PWER 0.79%
- GNR $5.39B
- PWER $12M
- GNR +31.9%, better
- PWER +31.8%
- GNR 2.42%, better
- PWER 1.13%
- GNR 110
- PWER 40
- GNR 341K sh, better
- PWER 962 sh
- GNR $75.69
- PWER $43.53
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | GNR | PWER |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A80Higher | F1 |
| Mission | A76 | |
| Risk | C54Higher | D28 |
| Tradability | A83Higher | F8 |
| Holdings | A77Higher | B65 |
| Durability | A89Higher | D33 |
Rank among Natural Resources funds
Same Category. GNR and PWER are both graded against the same 14 Natural Resources funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
GNRA
PWERF
In short
GNR Most resource ETFs are energy funds in a hard hat. GNR spreads a global, large-cap lineup across agriculture, energy, and metals and mining, roughly 90 names tracking an S&P natural resources index since 2010.
PWER A clean-energy fund that owns the gritty stuff on purpose: Nomura's manager pairs transition enablers with "responsible producers" (traditional energy and materials firms cutting emissions). Active, no index, 0.79% with no fee waiver.
Stated mandate
GNR The fund seeks to provide investment results corresponding generally to the total return performance of the S&P Global Natural Resources Index. It provides exposure to large-cap companies across agriculture, energy, and metals and mining.
PWER The Fund seeks long-term capital growth through an actively managed portfolio of companies supporting the transition to cleaner, lower-carbon energy. It emphasizes transition enablers and responsible producers selected through environmental and fundamental analysis.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
GNR vs PWER Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
GNR vs PWER Cost
Overpaying PWER vs GNR
$7,084
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
GNR 0.40%
$8,090
PWER 0.79%
$15,174
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | GNR | PWER | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $723 | $1,405 | $682 |
| 20 | $2,793 | $5,331 | $2,538 |
| 30 | $8,090 | $15,174 | $7,084 |
- 0.40%GNR, cheaper
- 0.79%PWER
- Middle half of Natural Resources funds
- Median 0.46%
GNR 4th cheapest of 14 funds
PWER 14th cheapest of 14 funds
GNR vs PWER Dividends
- GNR 2.42%, better
- PWER 1.13%
- GNR $1.82
- PWER $0.49
- GNR $0.86
- PWER $0.23
- GNR Jun 1, 2026
- PWER Sep 21, 2026
- GNR Jun 3, 2026
- PWER Sep 25, 2026
- GNR Twice a year
- PWER Quarterly
Distribution history
GNR vs PWER Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
Risk facts
- Volatility
- GNR 15.9%PWER 20.4%
- Return per unit of risk
- GNR 0.75PWER 0.85
- Worst fall
- GNR −25.7%PWER −29.7%
- Market sensitivity
- GNR 0.48PWER 0.88
Popular comparisons
- 0.40% · 0.37%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.37%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.40% · 0.35%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.35%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.40% · 0.41%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.41%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.