ICLN vs. ACES

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ICLN tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index while ACES tracks the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICLN returned -2.55%/yr vs -13.36%/yr for ACES. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.

Performance

ICLN vs. ACES - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 13.66% return, which is significantly higher than ACES's 0.52% return.

ICLN

• 1D: -3.25%
• 1M: -10.73%
• 6M: 6.35%
• YTD: 13.66%
• 1Y: 40.77%
• 3Y*: 1.53%
• 5Y*: -2.55%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

ACES

• 1D: -2.13%
• 1M: -11.74%
• 6M: -7.21%
• YTD: 0.52%
• 1Y: 20.15%
• 3Y*: -11.16%
• 5Y*: -13.36%
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	13.66%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-3.43%
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.52%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-9.81%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and ACES is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018	0.86

The correlation between ICLN and ACES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. ACES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	ACES
Utilities	36.7%	23.8%
Energy	30.2%	0.4%
Industrials	27.6%	21.6%
Technology	3.1%	30.1%
Basic Materials	1.4%	7.3%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	9.9%
Financial Services	0.1%	4.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	2.5%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 48
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 50

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 22
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 21
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

ICLN vs. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). 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.

	ICLN	ACES	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	0.59	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	1.01	+0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.12	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	0.84	+1.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.74	2.27	+4.47

ICLN vs. ACES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is higher than the ACES Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and ACES, 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

ICLN vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than ACES's maximum drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and ACES.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	ACES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-79.05%	-8.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.37%	-24.13%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-58.68%	+15.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	-74.44%	+17.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-49.15%	-65.96%	+16.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.47%	-39.16%	-27.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.07%	8.88%	-2.81%

Volatility

ICLN vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 11.84% compared to ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) at 9.99%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACES based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	ACES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.84%	9.99%	+1.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.34%	25.42%	-1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.50%	34.17%	-4.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.90%	36.58%	-8.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.40%	35.70%	-8.30%

ICLN vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, more than ACES's 0.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.68%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	0.99%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICLN and ACES in my portfolio?

ICLN and ACES have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ICLN or ACES?

ICLN has higher volatility (11.84%) compared to ACES (9.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs ACES's -79.05%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or ACES?

On 5-year performance, ICLN leads with -2.55% vs -13.36% for ACES. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ACES has been the lower-risk option at 9.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or ACES?

Over the 5-year period, ICLN has performed better with a -2.55% return vs -13.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or ACES?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ICLN or ACES?

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.68% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ICLN and ACES?

ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.55% for ACES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.59), 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.