IBAT vs. ION

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 118.21% vs 96.49% for ION. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

IBAT vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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 ION's 3.17% return.

IBAT

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

ION

• 1D: -4.93%
• 1M: -11.41%
• YTD: 3.17%
• 6M: 1.52%
• 1Y: 96.49%
• 3Y*: 15.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IBAT vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	57.07%	32.09%	-13.29%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	3.17%	108.37%	-15.67%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and ION is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.58

The correlation between IBAT and ION has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	ION
Industrials	40.5%	1.7%
Basic Materials	30.6%	14.1%
Technology	25.5%	-
Energy	1.9%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	-
Utilities	0.4%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.3%
Healthcare	-	1.9%
Real Estate	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. ION — 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

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 73
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 63
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ION 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. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.11	2.45	+1.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	2.80	+1.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.60	1.36	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.67	4.16	+4.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.09	12.42	+11.67

IBAT vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.11, which is higher than the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and ION, 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. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum ION drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-52.08%	+23.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.71%	-23.30%	+9.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-46.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.13%	-22.18%	+16.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.70%	-23.59%	+15.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	7.79%	-2.86%

Volatility

IBAT vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) have volatilities of 14.59% and 13.98%, 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	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.59%	13.98%	+0.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.56%	32.19%	-8.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.95%	39.68%	-10.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.02%	31.59%	-6.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.02%	31.59%	-6.57%

IBAT vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.68%, less than ION's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.68%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.55%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and ION in my portfolio?

IBAT and ION have a correlation of 0.55, 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 ION?

IBAT has higher volatility (14.59%) compared to ION (13.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or ION?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 118.21% vs 96.49% for ION. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 13.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or ION?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 118.21% return vs 96.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or ION?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

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

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.68% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IBAT and ION?

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while ION is Lithium & Battery Metals. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.11 vs 2.45), 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.