PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BATT vs. ICLN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BATT vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BATT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund actively managed by Amplify, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. BATT is actively managed, while ICLN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BATT returned 2.12%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ICLN. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BATT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

BATT vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BATT achieves a 20.36% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 32.00% return.

BATT

1D
0.24%
1M
-0.60%
YTD
20.36%
6M
19.88%
1Y
93.32%
3Y*
12.58%
5Y*
2.12%
10Y*
—

ICLN

1D
2.51%
1M
-3.22%
YTD
32.00%
6M
30.26%
1Y
73.06%
3Y*
8.37%
5Y*
0.24%
10Y*
11.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BATT vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
BATT
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF		20.36%59.70%-13.93%-7.05%-32.25%16.52%44.43%-2.40%-42.27%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		32.00%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-8.84%

Correlation

The correlation between BATT and ICLN is 0.64, 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

0.64

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.65

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2018

0.66

The correlation between BATT and ICLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

BATT vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BATT
ICLN

Basic Materials

58.7%
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

18.0%
0.1%

Industrials

16.8%
28.7%

Technology

5.1%
10.5%

Financial Services

0.3%

-

Communication Services

0.0%

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

23.7%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

34.6%

Basic Materials

BATT
58.7%
ICLN
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

BATT
18.0%
ICLN
0.1%

Industrials

BATT
16.8%
ICLN
28.7%

Technology

BATT
5.1%
ICLN
10.5%

Financial Services

BATT
0.3%
ICLN

-

Communication Services

BATT
0.0%
ICLN

-

Consumer Defensive

BATT

-

ICLN

-

Energy

BATT

-

ICLN
23.7%

Healthcare

BATT

-

ICLN

-

Real Estate

BATT

-

ICLN

-

Utilities

BATT

-

ICLN
34.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with BATT:
BATT vs. LITBATT vs. LITPBATT vs. IDRVBATT vs. TDVBATT vs. CARSBATT vs. ILITBATT vs. IVW
Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT

Return for Risk

BATT vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
BATT
BATT Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BATT vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). 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.

BATTICLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.91
2.61

+0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.25
3.19

+0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.40

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.51

4.48

+1.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.21

15.79

+2.42

BATT vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BATT Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is comparable to the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BATT and ICLN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BATT vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BATT drawdown since its inception was -69.38%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BATT and ICLN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BATTICLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-69.38%

-87.15%

+17.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.03%

-16.38%

-0.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-47.65%

-43.18%

-4.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-61.98%

-57.16%

-4.82%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-66.75%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.88%

-40.94%

+33.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-34.62%

-66.53%

+31.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.14%

4.64%

+0.50%

Volatility

BATT vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) is 11.78%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 13.10%. This indicates that BATT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ICLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

BATTICLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.78%

13.10%

-1.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

26.63%

22.66%

+3.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

32.33%

28.19%

+4.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.90%

27.62%

+2.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.72%

27.34%

+3.38%

BATT vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

BATT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

BATT vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

BATT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than ICLN's 0.85% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BATT
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF		1.54%1.85%3.17%3.23%4.14%2.32%0.21%3.22%0.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		0.85%1.63%1.85%1.59%0.89%1.18%0.34%1.36%2.77%2.49%3.88%2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

BATT and ICLN have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICLN has higher volatility (13.10%) compared to BATT (11.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BATT dropped -69.38% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

On 5-year performance, BATT leads with 2.12% vs 0.24% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 11.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BATT has performed better with a 2.12% return vs 0.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 0.85% for ICLN.

BATT is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for BATT and 0.39% for ICLN.

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.61), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BATT and ICLN

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer