PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IBAT vs. RNRG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and RNRG (Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials while RNRG tracks the Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 124.45% vs 42.65% for RNRG. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RNRG.

Performance

IBAT vs. RNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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 RNRG's 17.66% return.

IBAT

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

RNRG

1D
-1.39%
1M
0.86%
YTD
17.66%
6M
17.51%
1Y
42.65%
3Y*
4.44%
5Y*
-2.70%
10Y*
4.47%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBAT vs. RNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		64.52%32.09%-13.19%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF		17.66%29.61%-9.76%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and RNRG is 0.58, 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

0.58

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

0.54

The correlation between IBAT and RNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. RNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IBAT
RNRG

Industrials

41.6%
3.0%

Basic Materials

29.0%
2.1%

Technology

23.4%
2.2%

Energy

3.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

1.9%

-

Utilities

0.4%
92.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

IBAT
41.6%
RNRG
3.0%

Basic Materials

IBAT
29.0%
RNRG
2.1%

Technology

IBAT
23.4%
RNRG
2.2%

Energy

IBAT
3.4%
RNRG

-

Consumer Cyclical

IBAT
1.9%
RNRG

-

Utilities

IBAT
0.4%
RNRG
92.8%

Communication Services

IBAT

-

RNRG

-

Consumer Defensive

IBAT

-

RNRG

-

Financial Services

IBAT

-

RNRG

-

Healthcare

IBAT

-

RNRG

-

Real Estate

IBAT

-

RNRG

-

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

Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF

Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. ICLNIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. HYDR
Often compared with RNRG:
RNRG vs. ICLNRNRG vs. PBWRNRG vs. EFRARNRG vs. VDERNRG vs. CNRGRNRG vs. IYERNRG vs. UTG

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. RNRG — 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
RNRG
RNRG Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
RNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
RNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
RNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
RNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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. RNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG). 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.

IBATRNRGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
4.75
2.72

+2.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
5.12
3.58

+1.54

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.68

1.45

+0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.21

7.20

+3.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

26.91

19.98

+6.93

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. RNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is higher than the RNRG Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and RNRG, 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

IBATRNRGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.75

2.72

+2.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

-0.13

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.23

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.41

0.07

+1.35

Drawdowns

IBAT vs. RNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum RNRG drawdown of -58.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and RNRG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IBATRNRGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.26%

-58.79%

+30.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.25%

-5.95%

-6.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-35.23%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-52.17%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-58.79%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-30.37%

+29.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.74%

-24.45%

+16.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.64%

2.14%

+2.50%

Volatility

IBAT vs. RNRG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a higher volatility of 10.25% compared to Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF (RNRG) at 5.55%. This indicates that IBAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IBATRNRGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.25%

5.55%

+4.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.28%

12.10%

+8.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.35%

15.77%

+10.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.83%

20.10%

+3.73%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.83%

19.67%

+4.16%

IBAT vs. RNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than RNRG's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. RNRG - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than RNRG's 1.28% 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%
RNRG
Global X Funds Global X Renewable Energy Producers ETF		1.28%1.50%1.48%1.44%1.15%1.10%3.16%2.97%5.22%4.14%5.02%3.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

IBAT and RNRG have a correlation of 0.58, 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 RNRG (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs RNRG's -58.79%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 42.65% for RNRG. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, RNRG has been the lower-risk option at 5.55%. 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 42.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RNRG.

RNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while RNRG tracks Indxx Renewable Energy Producers Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.65% for RNRG.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 2.72), 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 RNRG

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