PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IBAT vs. IXJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IBAT vs. IXJ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while IXJ is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 9.30% for IXJ. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for IXJ.

Performance

IBAT vs. IXJ - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 64.52% return, which is significantly higher than IXJ's -5.26% return.

IBAT

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

IXJ

1D
0.39%
1M
0.34%
YTD
-5.26%
6M
-4.88%
1Y
9.30%
3Y*
4.42%
5Y*
4.02%
10Y*
7.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBAT vs. IXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		64.52%32.09%-13.19%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		-5.26%14.99%-5.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and IXJ is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024

0.34

IBAT vs. IXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IBAT
IXJ

Industrials

41.6%

-

Basic Materials

29.0%

-

Technology

23.4%

-

Energy

3.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

1.9%

-

Utilities

0.4%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

0.5%

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

98.9%

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

IBAT
41.6%
IXJ

-

Basic Materials

IBAT
29.0%
IXJ

-

Technology

IBAT
23.4%
IXJ

-

Energy

IBAT
3.4%
IXJ

-

Consumer Cyclical

IBAT
1.9%
IXJ

-

Utilities

IBAT
0.4%
IXJ

-

Communication Services

IBAT

-

IXJ

-

Consumer Defensive

IBAT

-

IXJ
0.5%

Financial Services

IBAT

-

IXJ

-

Healthcare

IBAT

-

IXJ
98.9%

Real Estate

IBAT

-

IXJ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

iShares Global Healthcare ETF

Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. HYDR
Often compared with IXJ:
IXJ vs. XLVIXJ vs. VHTIXJ vs. XDWH.LIXJ vs. IHIIXJ vs. FHLCIXJ vs. IVVIXJ vs. HLTH.L

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. IXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
IXJ
IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
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. IXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

IBATIXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
4.75
0.64

+4.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
5.12
1.06

+4.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.68

1.12

+0.56

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.21

0.87

+9.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

26.91

2.11

+24.80

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. IXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is higher than the IXJ Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and IXJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IBATIXJDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.75

0.64

+4.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.28

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.49

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.41

0.42

+1.00

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. IXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum IXJ drawdown of -40.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and IXJ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IBATIXJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.26%

-40.60%

+12.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.25%

-10.78%

-1.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-18.14%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-18.14%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-27.35%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-9.27%

+8.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.74%

-6.92%

-0.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.64%

4.41%

+0.23%

Volatility

IBAT vs. IXJ - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 10.25% compared to iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) at 3.75%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IBATIXJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.25%

3.75%

+6.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.28%

10.05%

+10.23%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.35%

14.55%

+11.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.83%

14.21%

+9.62%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.83%

15.67%

+8.16%

IBAT vs. IXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than IXJ's 0.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. IXJ - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than IXJ's 1.47% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IXJ
iShares Global Healthcare ETF		1.47%1.40%1.50%1.38%1.17%1.12%1.27%1.42%2.11%1.46%1.73%2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

IBAT and IXJ have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IBAT has higher volatility (10.25%) compared to IXJ (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs IXJ's -40.60%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 9.30% for IXJ. On fees, IXJ is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IXJ has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 9.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IXJ is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

IBAT is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while IXJ is Health & Biotech Equities. IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while IXJ tracks S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.46% for IXJ.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 0.64), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IBAT and IXJ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer