FAN vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FAN (First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - FAN tracks the ISE Clean Edge Global Wind Energy Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FAN returned 38.86% vs 118.21% for IBAT. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FAN charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

FAN vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF (FAN) 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, FAN achieves a 20.47% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 57.07% return.

FAN

• 1D: -2.65%
• 1M: -5.81%
• YTD: 20.47%
• 6M: 20.15%
• 1Y: 38.86%
• 3Y*: 14.67%
• 5Y*: 4.21%
• 10Y*: 9.88%

IBAT

• 1D: -6.13%
• 1M: -0.00%
• YTD: 57.07%
• 6M: 55.05%
• 1Y: 118.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FAN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FAN First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF	20.47%	40.38%	-2.64%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	57.07%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FAN and IBAT is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.66

The correlation between FAN and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

FAN vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FAN	IBAT
Utilities	55.7%	0.4%
Industrials	41.3%	40.5%
Consumer Cyclical	1.7%	1.5%
Energy	1.1%	1.9%
Basic Materials	0.3%	30.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	25.5%

Return for Risk

FAN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAN

FAN Risk / Return Rank: 63
FAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
FAN Omega Ratio Rank: 55
FAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
FAN Martin Ratio Rank: 67

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 94
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FAN vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF (FAN) 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.

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.

	FAN	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	4.11	-2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.57	4.27	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.60	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.51	8.67	-5.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.64	24.09	-12.45

FAN vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAN Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAN 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.

Drawdowns

FAN vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAN drawdown since its inception was -79.94%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAN and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FAN	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.94%	-28.26%	-51.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.13%	-13.71%	+2.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.45%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.44%	-6.13%	-3.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-45.08%	-7.70%	-37.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.35%	4.93%	-1.58%

Volatility

FAN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF (FAN) is 6.87%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 14.59%. This indicates that FAN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FAN	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.87%	14.59%	-7.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.93%	23.56%	-7.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.41%	28.95%	-8.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.42%	25.02%	-3.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.96%	25.02%	-4.06%

FAN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAN has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

FAN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

FAN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, more than IBAT's 0.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAN First Trust Global Wind Energy ETF	1.03%	1.35%	1.52%	1.71%	1.50%	1.79%	0.84%	2.42%	2.67%	2.59%	6.04%	2.35%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.68%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FAN and IBAT in my portfolio?

FAN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FAN or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (14.59%) compared to FAN (6.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAN dropped -79.94% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, FAN or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 118.21% vs 38.86% for FAN. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, FAN has been the lower-risk option at 6.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FAN or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 118.21% return vs 38.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FAN or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.62% for FAN.

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

FAN has the higher dividend yield at 1.03%, compared with 0.68% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between FAN and IBAT?

FAN tracks ISE Clean Edge Global Wind Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for FAN and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.11 vs 1.91), 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.