PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EZA vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EZA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI South Africa Index, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EZA returned 8.12%/yr vs 11.67%/yr for ICLN. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EZA charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

EZA vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) 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, EZA achieves a -2.81% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 27.33% return. Over the past 10 years, EZA has underperformed ICLN with an annualized return of 8.12%, while ICLN has yielded a comparatively higher 11.67% annualized return.

EZA

1D
0.89%
1M
-5.51%
YTD
-2.81%
6M
2.77%
1Y
30.30%
3Y*
23.45%
5Y*
9.50%
10Y*
8.12%

ICLN

1D
0.87%
1M
-4.39%
YTD
27.33%
6M
27.01%
1Y
60.81%
3Y*
5.25%
5Y*
-0.21%
10Y*
11.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EZA vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		-2.81%75.20%7.16%1.51%-5.18%7.91%-5.19%9.83%-25.24%36.03%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		27.33%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-9.03%21.47%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and ICLN is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.49

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

0.52

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

0.49

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.50

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008

0.56

The correlation between EZA and ICLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

EZA vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EZA
ICLN

Basic Materials

39.7%
1.1%

Financial Services

32.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

14.7%
0.1%

Communication Services

6.7%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.4%

-

Real Estate

1.6%

-

Industrials

1.5%
27.8%

Healthcare

1.2%

-

Energy

-

26.4%

Technology

-

11.1%

Utilities

-

32.8%

Basic Materials

EZA
39.7%
ICLN
1.1%

Financial Services

EZA
32.1%
ICLN

-

Consumer Cyclical

EZA
14.7%
ICLN
0.1%

Communication Services

EZA
6.7%
ICLN

-

Consumer Defensive

EZA
2.4%
ICLN

-

Real Estate

EZA
1.6%
ICLN

-

Industrials

EZA
1.5%
ICLN
27.8%

Healthcare

EZA
1.2%
ICLN

-

Energy

EZA

-

ICLN
26.4%

Technology

EZA

-

ICLN
11.1%

Utilities

EZA

-

ICLN
32.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with EZA:
EZA vs. AFKEZA vs. KSAEZA vs. SPYEZA vs. PAF.LEZA vs. VTIEZA vs. SCHDEZA vs. INDA
Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT

Return for Risk

EZA vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EZA
EZA Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
EZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
EZA Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
EZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
EZA Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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.

EZA vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) 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.

EZAICLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
2.17

-1.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.41
2.73

-1.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.34

-0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.31

3.73

-2.43

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.41

13.84

-10.43

EZA vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA 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

EZA vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and ICLN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EZAICLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.64%

-87.15%

+22.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.31%

-16.38%

-6.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.31%

-43.18%

+19.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.94%

-57.16%

+22.22%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.25%

-66.75%

+4.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.05%

-43.03%

+24.98%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.92%

-66.56%

+49.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.93%

4.41%

+4.52%

Volatility

EZA vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) is 11.34%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 12.97%. This indicates that EZA 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

EZAICLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.34%

12.97%

-1.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.03%

22.62%

+4.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.92%

28.21%

+3.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.86%

27.55%

+1.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.43%

27.32%

+4.11%

EZA vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EZA vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.34%, more than ICLN's 1.28% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		6.34%6.16%7.26%2.84%3.90%2.05%5.51%12.27%3.81%1.55%4.10%3.03%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		1.28%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

EZA and ICLN have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICLN has higher volatility (12.97%) compared to EZA (11.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EZA dropped -64.64% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

On 10-year performance, ICLN leads with 11.67% vs 8.12% for EZA. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, EZA has been the lower-risk option at 11.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 11.67% return vs 8.12%. 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 EZA.

EZA has the higher dividend yield at 6.34%, compared with 1.28% for ICLN.

EZA is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EZA and 0.39% for ICLN.

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 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 EZA 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