PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IBAT vs. AAXJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IBAT vs. AAXJ

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and AAXJ (iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while AAXJ is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 105.19% vs 48.69% for AAXJ. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for AAXJ.

Performance

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 51.63% return, which is significantly higher than AAXJ's 26.46% return.

IBAT

1D
1.07%
1M
-4.06%
YTD
51.63%
6M
46.54%
1Y
105.19%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

AAXJ

1D
0.46%
1M
0.61%
YTD
26.46%
6M
29.76%
1Y
48.69%
3Y*
22.11%
5Y*
6.41%
10Y*
10.34%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		51.63%32.09%-13.29%
AAXJ
iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF		26.46%31.53%8.36%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and AAXJ is 0.73, 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

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024

0.71

The correlation between IBAT and AAXJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IBAT
AAXJ

Industrials

40.2%
7.3%

Basic Materials

30.8%
3.1%

Technology

23.7%
49.4%

Energy

3.0%
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

1.8%
8.9%

Utilities

0.5%
1.6%

Communication Services

-

5.9%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.0%

Financial Services

-

15.8%

Healthcare

-

2.6%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Industrials

IBAT
40.2%
AAXJ
7.3%

Basic Materials

IBAT
30.8%
AAXJ
3.1%

Technology

IBAT
23.7%
AAXJ
49.4%

Energy

IBAT
3.0%
AAXJ
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

IBAT
1.8%
AAXJ
8.9%

Utilities

IBAT
0.5%
AAXJ
1.6%

Communication Services

IBAT

-

AAXJ
5.9%

Consumer Defensive

IBAT

-

AAXJ
2.0%

Financial Services

IBAT

-

AAXJ
15.8%

Healthcare

IBAT

-

AAXJ
2.6%

Real Estate

IBAT

-

AAXJ
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF

Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. HYDR
Often compared with AAXJ:
AAXJ vs. VPLAAXJ vs. IEMGAAXJ vs. VWOAAXJ vs. BBAXAAXJ vs. EPPAAXJ vs. CQQQAAXJ vs. THD

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. AAXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
AAXJ
AAXJ Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
AAXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AAXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
AAXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
AAXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
AAXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ). 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.

IBATAAXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.63
2.11

+1.52

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.98
2.73

+1.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.54

1.40

+0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.45

3.41

+4.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

20.84

12.55

+8.29

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 3.63, which is higher than the AAXJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and AAXJ, 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

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum AAXJ drawdown of -49.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and AAXJ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IBATAAXJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.26%

-49.37%

+21.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.71%

-13.66%

-0.05%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-19.74%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-40.64%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-44.52%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.98%

-4.62%

-4.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.74%

-14.01%

+6.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.90%

3.71%

+1.19%

Volatility

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 13.41% compared to iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) at 11.46%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AAXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IBATAAXJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.41%

11.46%

+1.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.68%

19.71%

+2.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.18%

22.12%

+6.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.58%

20.32%

+4.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.58%

20.42%

+4.16%

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than AAXJ's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. AAXJ - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, less than AAXJ's 1.43% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AAXJ
iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF		1.43%1.81%1.86%1.95%1.74%2.21%1.06%1.83%2.10%1.99%1.77%2.44%
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.76%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

IBAT and AAXJ have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IBAT has higher volatility (13.41%) compared to AAXJ (11.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs AAXJ's -49.37%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 105.19% vs 48.69% for AAXJ. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, AAXJ has been the lower-risk option at 11.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 105.19% return vs 48.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for AAXJ.

AAXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.76% for IBAT.

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while AAXJ is Asia Pacific Equities. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while AAXJ tracks MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.68% for AAXJ.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 vs 2.11), 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 IBAT and AAXJ

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