CTEC vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CTEC (Global X CleanTech ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - CTEC tracks the Indxx Global CleanTech Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CTEC returned 130.53% vs 122.01% for IBAT. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CTEC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

CTEC vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC) 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, CTEC achieves a 42.92% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 63.73% return.

CTEC

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 7.37%
• YTD: 42.92%
• 6M: 34.82%
• 1Y: 130.53%
• 3Y*: 2.12%
• 5Y*: -3.60%
• 10Y*: —

IBAT

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: 7.21%
• YTD: 63.73%
• 6M: 54.32%
• 1Y: 122.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CTEC vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CTEC Global X CleanTech ETF	42.92%	57.85%	-27.00%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	63.73%	32.09%	-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CTEC and IBAT is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	0.78

The correlation between CTEC and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CTEC vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CTEC	IBAT
Industrials	47.5%	41.6%
Energy	24.0%	3.4%
Technology	12.6%	23.4%
Basic Materials	3.4%	29.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.4%	1.9%
Utilities	1.9%	0.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CTEC vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

CTEC

CTEC Risk / Return Rank: 91
CTEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CTEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CTEC Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CTEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CTEC Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

CTEC vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC) 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.

	CTEC	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.76	4.66	-0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	5.05	-0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.67	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.45	10.01	-2.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.38	26.37	-7.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CTEC vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTEC Sharpe Ratio is 3.76, which is comparable to the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTEC 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

	CTEC	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.76	4.66	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.10	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.01	1.40	-1.39

Drawdowns

CTEC vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTEC drawdown since its inception was -81.58%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTEC and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTEC	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.58%	-28.26%	-53.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.62%	-12.25%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-76.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-45.78%	-1.72%	-44.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-52.38%	-7.73%	-44.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.76%	4.64%	+2.12%

Volatility

CTEC vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC) has a higher volatility of 10.93% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 10.13%. This indicates that CTEC'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

	CTEC	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.93%	10.13%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.73%	20.29%	+3.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.93%	26.36%	+8.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.38%	23.81%	+12.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.75%	23.81%	+13.94%

CTEC vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTEC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

CTEC vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

CTEC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than IBAT's 0.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CTEC Global X CleanTech ETF	0.52%	0.75%	1.56%	0.51%	0.25%	0.39%	0.02%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.70%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTEC and IBAT in my portfolio?

CTEC and IBAT have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CTEC or IBAT?

CTEC has higher volatility (10.93%) compared to IBAT (10.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTEC dropped -81.58% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, CTEC or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, CTEC leads with 130.53% vs 122.01% for IBAT. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 10.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTEC or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, CTEC has performed better with a 130.53% return vs 122.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CTEC or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CTEC.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.52% for CTEC.

What is the main difference between CTEC and IBAT?

CTEC tracks Indxx Global CleanTech Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CTEC and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.66 vs 3.76), 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.