IBAT vs. FRNW

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. IBAT is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 78.91% vs 39.49% for FRNW. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

IBAT vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 41.52% return, which is significantly higher than FRNW's 12.68% return.

IBAT

• 1D: -2.56%
• 1M: -6.67%
• 6M: 31.40%
• YTD: 41.52%
• 1Y: 78.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FRNW

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: -8.48%
• 6M: 6.29%
• YTD: 12.68%
• 1Y: 39.49%
• 3Y*: 3.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBAT vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	41.52%	32.09%	-13.29%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	12.68%	53.20%	-7.14%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and FRNW is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.75

The correlation between IBAT and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	FRNW
Industrials	39.5%	26.5%
Basic Materials	35.7%	-
Technology	20.4%	5.3%
Energy	1.8%	21.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	-
Utilities	0.3%	46.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 89
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 86
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 87

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 53
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.66	1.46	+1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	2.03	+1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.24	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.14	2.26	+2.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.39	7.31	+7.08

IBAT vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 2.66, which is higher than the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and FRNW, 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. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum FRNW drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-59.37%	+31.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.42%	-17.58%	+2.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-45.14%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.42%	-18.63%	+3.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.76%	-32.87%	+25.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.50%	5.41%	+0.09%

Volatility

IBAT vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 13.12% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 9.42%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.12%	9.42%	+3.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.08%	20.30%	+4.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.93%	27.21%	+2.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.43%	28.55%	-3.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.43%	28.55%	-3.12%

IBAT vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.75%, less than FRNW's 1.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	1.21%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.75%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and FRNW in my portfolio?

IBAT and FRNW have a correlation of 0.79, 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 FRNW?

IBAT has higher volatility (13.12%) compared to FRNW (9.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or FRNW?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 78.91% vs 39.49% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 9.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or FRNW?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 78.91% return vs 39.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.75% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IBAT and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 1.46), 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.