IBAT vs. TAN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials while TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IBAT returned 63.73% vs 35.30% for TAN. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IBAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TAN.

Performance

IBAT vs. TAN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBAT achieves a 32.65% return, which is significantly higher than TAN's 0.43% return.

IBAT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: 17.70%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 1Y: 63.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.39%

TAN

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: -8.39%
• YTD: 0.43%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: -9.55%
• 5Y*: -10.35%
• 10Y*: 9.52%
• ALL TIME*: -7.13%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	$1.10M	$1.47M	$2.33M
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	$66.73M	$50.86M	$87.18M

IBAT vs. TAN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	32.65%	32.09%	-13.29%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.43%	48.31%	-24.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IBAT and TAN is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.66

The correlation between IBAT and TAN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

IBAT vs. TAN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBAT	TAN
Industrials	44.1%	1.7%
Basic Materials	32.2%	-
Technology	21.1%	29.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.2%	-
Energy	1.8%	20.4%
Utilities	0.3%	4.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	4.4%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IBAT vs. TAN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 76
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 71

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 34
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 34
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 33

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IBAT vs. TAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). 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	TAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	0.87	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	1.43	+1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.16	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	0.96	+1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.73	3.14	+5.59

IBAT vs. TAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is higher than the TAN Sharpe Ratio of 0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBAT and TAN, 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. TAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBAT drawdown since its inception was -28.26%, smaller than the maximum TAN drawdown of -95.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBAT and TAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBAT	TAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.26%	-95.29%	+67.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.85%	-35.51%	+9.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-58.70%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-73.95%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.73%	-77.35%	+56.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.03%	-78.45%	+70.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.15%	10.87%	-3.72%

Volatility

IBAT vs. TAN - Volatility Comparison

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) have volatilities of 12.10% and 11.99%, 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	TAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.10%	11.99%	+0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.99%	29.71%	-2.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.59%	39.21%	-7.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.08%	40.14%	-14.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.08%	38.27%	-12.19%

IBAT vs. TAN - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than TAN's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBAT vs. TAN - Dividend Comparison

IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%, while TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.80%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBAT and TAN in my portfolio?

IBAT and TAN have a correlation of 0.67, 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 TAN?

IBAT has higher volatility (12.10%) compared to TAN (11.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBAT dropped -28.26% vs TAN's -95.29%.

Which ETF is better, IBAT or TAN?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 63.73% vs 35.30% for TAN. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, TAN has been the lower-risk option at 11.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBAT or TAN?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 63.73% return vs 35.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBAT or TAN?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between IBAT and TAN?

IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials, while TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBAT and 0.69% for TAN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 0.87), 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.