PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CNRG vs. ICLN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index while ICLN tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNRG returned -0.42%/yr vs -3.76%/yr for ICLN. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CNRG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

CNRG vs. ICLN - 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 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, CNRG achieves a 2.01% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 7.10% return.

CNRG

1D
-0.59%
1M
-13.20%
6M
-6.95%
YTD
2.01%
1Y
40.07%
3Y*
4.32%
5Y*
-0.42%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
17.18%

ICLN

1D
-0.68%
1M
-10.78%
6M
-3.05%
YTD
7.10%
1Y
31.07%
3Y*
0.63%
5Y*
-3.76%
10Y*
8.55%
ALL TIME*
-3.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

CNRG

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
$1.13M$1.07M$1.47M

ICLN

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
$109.16M$91.32M$121.79M

CNRG vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF		2.01%50.23%-14.48%-11.55%-7.98%-15.68%138.35%63.26%-2.05%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		7.10%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-0.09%

Correlation

The correlation between CNRG and ICLN is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.91

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.88

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2018

0.88

The correlation between CNRG and ICLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNRG vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CNRG
ICLN

Utilities

35.8%
40.9%

Industrials

31.1%
22.6%

Technology

19.0%
25.0%

Energy

12.0%
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

2.0%
0.1%

Basic Materials

-

1.7%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.1%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

CNRG
35.8%
ICLN
40.9%

Industrials

CNRG
31.1%
ICLN
22.6%

Technology

CNRG
19.0%
ICLN
25.0%

Energy

CNRG
12.0%
ICLN
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

CNRG
2.0%
ICLN
0.1%

Basic Materials

CNRG

-

ICLN
1.7%

Communication Services

CNRG

-

ICLN

-

Consumer Defensive

CNRG

-

ICLN

-

Financial Services

CNRG

-

ICLN
0.1%

Healthcare

CNRG

-

ICLN

-

Real Estate

CNRG

-

ICLN

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with CNRG:
CNRG vs. TANCNRG vs. QCLNCNRG vs. BKLCCNRG vs. KRBNCNRG vs. CURECNRG vs. LCTDCNRG vs. SLX
Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. LITICLN vs. ACES

Return for Risk

CNRG vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
CNRG
CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
Martin Ratio Rank
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CNRG vs. ICLN - 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 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.

CNRGICLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
1.06

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.45
1.55

-0.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.19

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.21

1.13

+0.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.76

3.93

-0.17

CNRG vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNRG Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is comparable to the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNRG 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

CNRG vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNRG drawdown since its inception was -68.49%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNRG and ICLN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNRGICLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-68.49%

-87.15%

+18.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-31.56%

-28.78%

-2.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.07%

-36.96%

-6.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-59.17%

-57.16%

-2.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-66.75%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-33.66%

-52.08%

+18.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.66%

-66.42%

+34.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.11%

8.23%

+1.88%

Volatility

CNRG vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a higher volatility of 13.34% compared to iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) at 10.74%. This indicates that CNRG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNRGICLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.34%

10.74%

+2.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.61%

25.25%

+4.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

40.16%

30.58%

+9.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

34.83%

28.04%

+6.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.13%

27.51%

+8.62%

CNRG vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNRG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNRG vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

CNRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, more than ICLN's 1.05% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF		1.34%1.46%1.34%1.17%1.23%1.34%0.69%1.16%0.35%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		1.05%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

With a correlation of 0.91, CNRG and ICLN move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

CNRG has higher volatility (13.34%) compared to ICLN (10.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNRG dropped -68.49% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with -0.42% vs -3.76% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 10.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a -0.42% return vs -3.76%. 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 0.45% for CNRG.

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 1.05% for ICLN.

CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNRG and 0.39% for ICLN.

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.06 vs 0.95), 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 CNRG 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