CNRG vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CNRG returned 117.30% vs 124.45% for IBAT. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

CNRG vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) 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, CNRG achieves a 36.68% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 64.52% return.

CNRG

• 1D: -2.81%
• 1M: 18.72%
• YTD: 36.68%
• 6M: 32.67%
• 1Y: 117.30%
• 3Y*: 15.27%
• 5Y*: 5.21%
• 10Y*: —

IBAT

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: 10.03%
• YTD: 64.52%
• 6M: 57.93%
• 1Y: 124.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CNRG vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	36.68%	50.23%	-2.94%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	64.52%	32.09%	-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG and IBAT is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	0.76

The correlation between CNRG and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNRG vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNRG	IBAT
Industrials	41.2%	41.6%
Technology	29.1%	23.4%
Utilities	25.2%	0.4%
Energy	3.0%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	1.6%	1.9%
Basic Materials	-	29.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNRG

CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 84
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 95
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.

CNRG vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) 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.

	CNRG	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	4.75	-1.50
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	5.12	-1.53
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.68	-0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.65	10.21	-3.56
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.06	26.91	-9.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNRG vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG 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

	CNRG	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25	4.75	-1.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.15	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	1.41	-0.80

Drawdowns

CNRG vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNRG	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.49%	-28.26%	-40.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.73%	-12.25%	-5.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.12%	-1.25%	-9.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.82%	-7.74%	-24.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.90%	4.64%	+2.26%

Volatility

CNRG vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a higher volatility of 12.13% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 10.25%. This indicates that CNRG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNRG	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.13%	10.25%	+1.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.44%	20.28%	+5.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.49%	26.35%	+10.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.99%	23.83%	+10.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.78%	23.83%	+11.95%

CNRG vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, more than IBAT's 0.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNRG SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF	1.01%	1.46%	1.34%	1.17%	1.23%	1.34%	0.69%	1.16%	0.35%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.70%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNRG and IBAT in my portfolio?

CNRG and IBAT have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CNRG or IBAT?

CNRG has higher volatility (12.13%) compared to IBAT (10.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, CNRG or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 117.30% for CNRG. On fees, CNRG is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 10.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNRG or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 117.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNRG or IBAT?

CNRG is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between CNRG and IBAT?

CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 3.25), 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.