FMED vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FMED (Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMED is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. FMED is actively managed, while ICLN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMED returned 1.97%/yr vs 6.74%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FMED charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

FMED vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMED achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 26.14% return.

FMED

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: 6.62%
• YTD: -2.44%
• 6M: -4.06%
• 1Y: 12.97%
• 3Y*: 1.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ICLN

• 1D: -4.44%
• 1M: -7.52%
• YTD: 26.14%
• 6M: 25.31%
• 1Y: 64.46%
• 3Y*: 6.74%
• 5Y*: -0.79%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

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

FMED vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	-2.44%	9.69%	2.29%	-3.59%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	26.14%	47.05%	-25.72%	-15.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FMED and ICLN is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.40

The correlation between FMED and ICLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (1 year) to 0.40 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FMED vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMED	ICLN
Healthcare	97.6%	-
Technology	0.9%	10.5%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	23.7%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	28.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	34.6%

Return for Risk

FMED vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMED

FMED Risk / Return Rank: 19
FMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FMED Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FMED Martin Ratio Rank: 16

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 70
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

FMED vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) 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.

	FMED	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.68	2.27	-1.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.12	2.84	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.36	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	3.96	-3.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.55	13.73	-12.18

FMED vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMED Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMED 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.

Drawdowns

FMED vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMED drawdown since its inception was -21.84%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMED and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMED	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.84%	-87.15%	+65.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.33%	-16.38%	-1.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.84%	-43.18%	+21.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-57.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-66.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.48%	-43.56%	+35.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.11%	-66.53%	+59.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.38%	4.71%	+3.67%

Volatility

FMED vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) is 6.57%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 13.47%. This indicates that FMED 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.

Volatility by Period

	FMED	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.57%	13.47%	-6.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.04%	23.14%	-8.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.27%	28.52%	-9.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.53%	27.69%	-9.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	27.33%	-8.80%

FMED vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMED has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMED vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

FMED has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	0.89%	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

Can I hold both FMED and ICLN in my portfolio?

FMED and ICLN have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMED or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to FMED (6.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMED dropped -21.84% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, FMED or ICLN?

On 3-year performance, ICLN leads with 6.74% vs 1.97% for FMED. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FMED has been the lower-risk option at 6.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMED or ICLN?

Over the 3-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 6.74% return vs 1.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMED or ICLN?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FMED.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMED or ICLN?

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.00% for FMED.

What is the main difference between FMED and ICLN?

FMED is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FMED and 0.39% for ICLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 0.68), 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.