ACES vs FMN
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund
Quick Verdict
ACES has a lower expense ratio. ACES delivered stronger 1-year returns. FMN offers more diversification with 150 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | FMN | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.75% | |
| AUM | $124M | $16M | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.73% | 4.43% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 150 | |
| YTD Return | -3.80% | +3.51% | |
| 1Y Return | +20.16% | +9.28% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -6.85% | +6.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -13.04% | -2.54% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.4% | 14.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -53.4% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | Federated Hermes | |
| Category | Equity | Tax Preferred | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Dec 20, 2002 |
ACES vs FMN Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and Federated Hermes Premier Municipal Income Fund (FMN) is a ETF from Federated Hermes. Over the past year ACES returned +20.16% while FMN returned +9.28%. Year to date, ACES is down 3.80% versus a gain of 3.51% for FMN.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -6.85% per year against +6.77% for FMN; over five years the annualized figures are -13.04% and -2.54% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, ACES has the edge at +3.80% annualized vs -0.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.4% compared with 14.7% for FMN. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -53.4% for FMN. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.43. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while FMN charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $75 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 0.73% against 4.43% for FMN.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and FMN share 0 holdings out of 122 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or FMN?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while FMN charges 0.75%. ACES is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $20 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or FMN?
Over the past year ACES returned +20.16% vs +9.28% for FMN, so ACES leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.80% vs -0.21% for FMN. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or FMN?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.4% annualized versus 14.7% for FMN. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs FMN -53.4%.
Should I hold both ACES and FMN?
ACES and FMN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and FMN?
ACES and FMN share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 122 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or FMN?
ACES yields 0.73% while FMN yields 4.43%, so FMN currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.