IBAT vs. ACWI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 29.18% for ACWI. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for ACWI.

Performance

IBAT vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 64.52% return, which is significantly higher than ACWI's 12.13% return.

IBAT

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: 10.03%
• YTD: 64.52%
• 6M: 57.93%
• 1Y: 124.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWI

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 5.28%
• YTD: 12.13%
• 6M: 12.96%
• 1Y: 29.18%
• 3Y*: 21.15%
• 5Y*: 11.28%
• 10Y*: 12.85%

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

IBAT vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	64.52%	32.09%	-13.19%
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	12.13%	22.41%	8.68%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and ACWI 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 22, 2024	0.73

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

IBAT vs. ACWI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	ACWI
Industrials	41.6%	10.9%
Basic Materials	29.0%	3.7%
Technology	23.4%	29.4%
Energy	3.4%	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	1.9%	9.3%
Utilities	0.4%	2.6%
Communication Services	-	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.0%
Financial Services	-	16.1%
Healthcare	-	8.1%
Real Estate	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 95
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 94
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 94

ACWI

ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 66
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IBAT	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.75	2.29	+2.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.12	3.17	+1.95
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.68	1.41	+0.26
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.21	3.01	+7.20
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	26.91	13.53	+13.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IBAT vs. ACWI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is higher than the ACWI Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and ACWI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IBAT	ACWI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.75	2.29	+2.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.71	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.41	0.43	+0.99

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum ACWI drawdown of -56.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and ACWI.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	ACWI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-56.00%	+27.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.25%	-9.73%	-2.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.55%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.83%	-0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.74%	-8.61%	+0.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.64%	2.16%	+2.48%

Volatility

IBAT vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 10.25% compared to iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) at 3.93%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	ACWI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.25%	3.93%	+6.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.28%	10.29%	+9.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.35%	12.78%	+13.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.83%	16.05%	+7.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.83%	17.11%	+6.72%

IBAT vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than ACWI's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	1.38%	1.55%	1.70%	1.88%	1.79%	1.71%	1.43%	2.33%	2.18%	1.94%	2.19%	2.56%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.70%	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 IBAT and ACWI in my portfolio?

IBAT and ACWI 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.

Which is riskier, IBAT or ACWI?

IBAT has higher volatility (10.25%) compared to ACWI (3.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs ACWI's -56.00%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or ACWI?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 29.18% for ACWI. On fees, ACWI is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, ACWI has been the lower-risk option at 3.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or ACWI?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 29.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or ACWI?

ACWI is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

ACWI has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IBAT and ACWI?

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while ACWI is Global Equities. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.32% for ACWI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 2.29), 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.