IBAT vs. CTEC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and CTEC (Global X CleanTech ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials while CTEC tracks the Indxx Global CleanTech Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 130.98% for CTEC. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CTEC.

Performance

IBAT vs. CTEC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC). 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 CTEC's 42.98% return.

IBAT

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

CTEC

• 1D: -2.79%
• 1M: 11.16%
• YTD: 42.98%
• 6M: 39.64%
• 1Y: 130.98%
• 3Y*: 2.15%
• 5Y*: -3.59%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBAT vs. CTEC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	64.52%	32.09%	-13.19%
CTEC Global X CleanTech ETF	42.98%	57.85%	-27.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and CTEC is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	0.78

The correlation between IBAT and CTEC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. CTEC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	CTEC
Industrials	41.6%	47.5%
Basic Materials	29.0%	3.4%
Technology	23.4%	12.6%
Energy	3.4%	24.0%
Consumer Cyclical	1.9%	3.4%
Utilities	0.4%	1.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. CTEC — 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

CTEC

CTEC Risk / Return Rank: 90
CTEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
CTEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
CTEC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CTEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
CTEC Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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. CTEC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC). 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	CTEC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.75	3.77	+0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.12	4.13	+0.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.68	1.52	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.21	7.48	+2.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.91	19.45	+7.46
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. CTEC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is comparable to the CTEC Sharpe Ratio of 3.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and CTEC, 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	CTEC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.75	3.77	+0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.41	0.01	+1.41

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. CTEC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum CTEC drawdown of -81.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and CTEC.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	CTEC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-81.58%	+53.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.25%	-17.62%	+5.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-65.77%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-76.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-45.76%	+44.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.74%	-52.39%	+44.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.64%	6.76%	-2.12%

Volatility

IBAT vs. CTEC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) is 10.25%, while Global X CleanTech ETF (CTEC) has a volatility of 11.34%. This indicates that IBAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CTEC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	CTEC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.25%	11.34%	-1.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.28%	23.75%	-3.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.35%	34.94%	-8.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.83%	36.39%	-12.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.83%	37.77%	-13.94%

IBAT vs. CTEC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than CTEC's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. CTEC - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, more than CTEC's 0.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CTEC Global X CleanTech ETF	0.52%	0.75%	1.56%	0.51%	0.25%	0.39%	0.02%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.70%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and CTEC in my portfolio?

IBAT and CTEC have a correlation of 0.85, 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 CTEC?

CTEC has higher volatility (11.34%) compared to IBAT (10.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs CTEC's -81.58%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or CTEC?

On 1-year performance, CTEC leads with 130.98% vs 124.45% for IBAT. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 10.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or CTEC?

Over the 1-year period, CTEC has performed better with a 130.98% return vs 124.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or CTEC?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CTEC.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.52% for CTEC.

What is the main difference between IBAT and CTEC?

IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while CTEC tracks Indxx Global CleanTech Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.50% for CTEC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 3.77), 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.