FRNW vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. FRNW is actively managed, while ICLN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FRNW returned 7.81%/yr vs 6.74%/yr for ICLN. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.39% expense ratio.

Performance

FRNW vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) 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, FRNW achieves a 20.76% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 26.14% return.

FRNW

• 1D: -3.60%
• 1M: -8.48%
• YTD: 20.76%
• 6M: 19.11%
• 1Y: 63.79%
• 3Y*: 7.81%
• 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)

FRNW vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	20.76%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.52%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	26.14%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	0.01%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and ICLN is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.95

The correlation between FRNW and ICLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRNW vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	ICLN
Utilities	45.2%	34.6%
Industrials	28.3%	28.7%
Energy	20.5%	23.7%
Technology	5.7%	10.5%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 76
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 65
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

FRNW vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) 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.

	FRNW	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.39	2.27	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	2.84	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.36	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	3.96	+0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.82	13.73	+1.10

FRNW vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 2.39, which is comparable to the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW 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

FRNW vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-87.15%	+27.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.20%	-16.38%	+2.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.14%	-43.18%	-1.96%
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	-12.80%	-43.56%	+30.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-66.53%	+33.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.32%	4.71%	-0.39%

Volatility

FRNW vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) is 10.92%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 13.47%. This indicates that FRNW 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

	FRNW	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.92%	13.47%	-2.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.84%	23.14%	-3.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.88%	28.52%	-1.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.55%	27.69%	+0.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.55%	27.33%	+1.22%

FRNW vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FRNW and ICLN have an expense ratio of 0.39%.

Dividends

FRNW vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.13%, more than ICLN's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.13%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	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 FRNW and ICLN in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, FRNW 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.

Which is riskier, FRNW or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to FRNW (10.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or ICLN?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 7.81% vs 6.74% for ICLN. Both ETFs have the same 0.39% expense ratio. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 10.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRNW or ICLN?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 7.81% return vs 6.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or ICLN?

FRNW and ICLN have the same expense ratio: 0.39% per year.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.13%, compared with 0.89% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between FRNW and ICLN?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.27), 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.