AAXJ vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

AAXJ (iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AAXJ is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index, while IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, AAXJ returned 48.69% vs 105.19% for IBAT. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AAXJ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAXJ achieves a 26.46% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 51.63% return.

AAXJ

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: 0.61%
• YTD: 26.46%
• 6M: 29.76%
• 1Y: 48.69%
• 3Y*: 22.11%
• 5Y*: 6.41%
• 10Y*: 10.34%

IBAT

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: -4.06%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 46.54%
• 1Y: 105.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AAXJ iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF	26.46%	31.53%	8.36%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	51.63%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between AAXJ and IBAT is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.71

The correlation between AAXJ and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AAXJ	IBAT
Technology	49.4%	23.7%
Financial Services	15.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	1.8%
Industrials	7.3%	40.2%
Communication Services	5.9%	-
Basic Materials	3.1%	30.8%
Healthcare	2.6%	-
Energy	2.2%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	-
Utilities	1.6%	0.5%
Real Estate	1.4%	-

Return for Risk

AAXJ vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AAXJ

AAXJ Risk / Return Rank: 75
AAXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
AAXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
AAXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 78
AAXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
AAXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 76

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 94
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AAXJ	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	3.63	-1.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	3.98	-1.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.54	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.41	7.45	-4.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.55	20.84	-8.29

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAXJ Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 3.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAXJ and IBAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAXJ drawdown since its inception was -49.37%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAXJ and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAXJ	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.37%	-28.26%	-21.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.66%	-13.71%	+0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.74%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.62%	-8.98%	+4.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.01%	-7.74%	-6.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	4.90%	-1.19%

Volatility

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) is 11.46%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 13.41%. This indicates that AAXJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAXJ	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.46%	13.41%	-1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.71%	22.68%	-2.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.12%	28.18%	-6.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.32%	24.58%	-4.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.42%	24.58%	-4.16%

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAXJ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAXJ vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

AAXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, more than IBAT's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AAXJ iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF	1.43%	1.81%	1.86%	1.95%	1.74%	2.21%	1.06%	1.83%	2.10%	1.99%	1.77%	2.44%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.76%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAXJ and IBAT in my portfolio?

AAXJ and IBAT have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAXJ or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (13.41%) compared to AAXJ (11.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAXJ dropped -49.37% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, AAXJ or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 105.19% vs 48.69% for AAXJ. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, AAXJ has been the lower-risk option at 11.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AAXJ or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 105.19% return vs 48.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AAXJ or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for AAXJ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AAXJ or IBAT?

AAXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.76% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between AAXJ and IBAT?

AAXJ is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IBAT is Alternative Energy Equities. AAXJ tracks MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for AAXJ and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 vs 2.11), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.