IBAT vs. ACES

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials while ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 118.21% vs 42.77% for ACES. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.

Performance

IBAT vs. ACES - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 57.07% return, which is significantly higher than ACES's 9.28% return.

IBAT

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

ACES

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 6M: 4.82%
• 1Y: 42.77%
• 3Y*: -5.11%
• 5Y*: -12.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBAT vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	57.07%	32.09%	-13.29%
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	9.28%	25.44%	-7.62%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and ACES is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.72

The correlation between IBAT and ACES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. ACES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	ACES
Industrials	40.5%	21.6%
Basic Materials	30.6%	7.3%
Technology	25.5%	30.1%
Energy	1.9%	0.4%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	9.9%
Utilities	0.4%	23.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	2.5%
Financial Services	-	4.4%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 39
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). 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.

	IBAT	ACES	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.11	1.27	+2.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	1.79	+2.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.60	1.22	+0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.67	2.41	+6.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.09	5.66	+18.43

IBAT vs. ACES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.11, which is higher than the ACES Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and ACES, 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

IBAT vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum ACES drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and ACES.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	ACES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-79.05%	+50.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.71%	-17.82%	+4.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-58.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-74.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.13%	-63.00%	+56.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-38.99%	+31.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	7.58%	-2.65%

Volatility

IBAT vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) have volatilities of 14.59% and 14.00%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	ACES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.59%	14.00%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.56%	25.21%	-1.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.95%	33.93%	-4.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.02%	36.52%	-11.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.02%	35.72%	-10.70%

IBAT vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.68%, more than ACES's 0.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.68%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and ACES in my portfolio?

IBAT and ACES have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBAT or ACES?

IBAT has higher volatility (14.59%) compared to ACES (14.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs ACES's -79.05%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or ACES?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 118.21% vs 42.77% for ACES. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, ACES has been the lower-risk option at 14.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or ACES?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 118.21% return vs 42.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or ACES?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.68%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between IBAT and ACES?

IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.55% for ACES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.11 vs 1.27), 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.