ACES vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ACES returned 80.47% vs 129.08% for IBAT. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

ACES vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) 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, ACES achieves a 32.49% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 66.56% return.

ACES

• 1D: 2.95%
• 1M: 20.25%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 6M: 32.78%
• 1Y: 80.47%
• 3Y*: -0.25%
• 5Y*: -8.07%
• 10Y*: —

IBAT

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: 10.63%
• YTD: 66.56%
• 6M: 60.29%
• 1Y: 129.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACES vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	32.49%	25.44%	-8.43%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	66.56%	32.09%	-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES 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 22, 2024	0.72

The correlation between ACES and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	IBAT
Utilities	25.5%	0.4%
Technology	24.8%	23.4%
Industrials	20.3%	41.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	1.9%
Basic Materials	9.3%	29.0%
Financial Services	5.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	-
Energy	0.5%	3.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 69
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 62

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 96
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 94
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

ACES vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) 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.

	ACES	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	4.94	-2.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	5.26	-2.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.70	-0.33
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.47	10.66	-6.19
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.30	28.14	-16.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACES vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACES	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	4.94	-2.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.22	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	1.45	-1.22

Drawdowns

ACES vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-28.26%	-50.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.44%	-12.25%	-5.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-55.14%	-0.02%	-55.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.86%	-7.75%	-31.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	4.64%	+2.27%

Volatility

ACES vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is 9.41%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 10.17%. This indicates that ACES 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

	ACES	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.41%	10.17%	-0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.55%	20.32%	+2.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.32%	26.31%	+6.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.15%	23.83%	+12.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.58%	23.83%	+11.75%

ACES vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than IBAT's 0.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.53%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.69%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and IBAT in my portfolio?

ACES 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, ACES or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (10.17%) compared to ACES (9.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 129.08% vs 80.47% for ACES. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, ACES has been the lower-risk option at 9.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 129.08% return vs 80.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.69%, compared with 0.53% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and IBAT?

ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.94 vs 2.51), 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.