// Index Comparison
ACCE Defense & Aerospace vs ACCE Clean Energy
Head-to-head: performance, risk profile, and constituent overlap between two ACCE indices.
US
ACCE Defense & Aerospace →
Defense contractors and tier-1 suppliers with >40% defense revenue exposure. Focuses on prime contractors, subsystem suppliers, and munitions companies benefiting from multi-year budget cycles and replenishment demand.
US
ACCE Clean Energy →
Energy transition infrastructure: solar, wind, storage, and grid modernization. Policy tailwinds meet declining unit economics.
ACCE Defense & Aerospace — risk
Volatility 30d+22.3%
Volatility 90d+25.7%
Sharpe 90d0.23
Max drawdown-17.4%
Beta vs ITA0.47
ACCE Clean Energy — risk
Volatility 30d+36.9%
Volatility 90d+39.9%
Sharpe 90d-0.75
Max drawdown-19.2%
Beta vs ICLN0.92
Constituent overlap
0 stocks held by both indices (out of 7 and 5)
Top sectors — ACCE Defense & Aerospace
Industrials100.0%
Top sectors — ACCE Clean Energy
Technology65.9%
Utilities34.1%
ACCE Verdict
ACCE Clean Energy has delivered a brutal -9.91% since inception while ACCE Defense & Aerospace managed a modest 2.1% gain, though both trail the benchmark's 4.74% return. Defense shows superior risk management with 25.7% volatility versus Clean Energy's punishing 39.8%, translating to a positive 0.23 Sharpe ratio against Clean Energy's deeply negative -0.75.
These indices occupy entirely different sectors with minimal overlap—one betting on geopolitical tensions and defense spending cycles, the other on energy transition infrastructure facing policy and technology headwinds. Defense's 0.47 beta suggests meaningful portfolio diversification benefits compared to Clean Energy's near-market 0.92 beta.
Defense suits conservative investors seeking defensive exposure with lower correlation to broader markets, particularly those betting on sustained geopolitical instability driving multi-year procurement cycles. Clean Energy appeals to aggressive growth investors willing to stomach extreme volatility for potential energy transition upside, though current fundamentals suggest this thesis remains premature. The risk-adjusted performance gap makes Defense the clear winner for most portfolios, while Clean Energy requires conviction that current pain will reverse as policy support and unit economics align.