IBAT vs. LCTD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and LCTD (BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. IBAT is passively managed, while LCTD is actively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 19.28% for LCTD. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for LCTD.

Performance

IBAT vs. LCTD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD). 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 LCTD's 6.33% return.

IBAT

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

LCTD

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 1.69%
• YTD: 6.33%
• 6M: 8.97%
• 1Y: 19.28%
• 3Y*: 14.96%
• 5Y*: 6.77%
• 10Y*: —

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

IBAT vs. LCTD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	64.52%	32.09%	-13.19%
LCTD BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	6.33%	30.42%	-1.44%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and LCTD is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024	0.69

The correlation between IBAT and LCTD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. LCTD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	LCTD
Industrials	41.6%	19.5%
Basic Materials	29.0%	5.8%
Technology	23.4%	9.1%
Energy	3.4%	5.8%
Consumer Cyclical	1.9%	8.4%
Utilities	0.4%	4.0%
Communication Services	-	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.0%
Financial Services	-	26.7%
Healthcare	-	9.3%
Real Estate	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. LCTD — 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

LCTD

LCTD Risk / Return Rank: 37
LCTD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
LCTD Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Omega Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
LCTD Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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. LCTD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD). 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	LCTD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.75	1.33	+3.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.12	1.92	+3.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.68	1.24	+0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.21	1.77	+8.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.91	6.39	+20.52
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. LCTD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is higher than the LCTD Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and LCTD, 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	LCTD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.75	1.33	+3.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.42	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.41	0.48	+0.93

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. LCTD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum LCTD drawdown of -29.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and LCTD.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	LCTD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-29.82%	+1.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.25%	-10.92%	-1.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.59%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-3.23%	+1.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.74%	-6.79%	-0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.64%	3.03%	+1.61%

Volatility

IBAT vs. LCTD - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 10.25% compared to BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTD) at 4.31%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCTD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBAT	LCTD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.25%	4.31%	+5.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.28%	11.99%	+8.29%
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%	16.14%	+7.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.83%	16.06%	+7.77%

IBAT vs. LCTD - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than LCTD's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. LCTD - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than LCTD's 3.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.70%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LCTD BlackRock World ex U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	3.40%	3.61%	3.74%	3.16%	3.52%	2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and LCTD in my portfolio?

IBAT and LCTD have a correlation of 0.65, 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 LCTD?

IBAT has higher volatility (10.25%) compared to LCTD (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs LCTD's -29.82%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or LCTD?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 19.28% for LCTD. On fees, LCTD is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LCTD has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or LCTD?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 19.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or LCTD?

LCTD is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

LCTD has the higher dividend yield at 3.40%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IBAT and LCTD?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.20% for LCTD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 1.33), 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.