PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ICLN vs. BATT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ICLN vs. BATT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and BATT (Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while BATT is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund actively managed by Amplify. ICLN is passively managed, while BATT is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICLN returned -0.79%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for BATT. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for BATT.

Performance

ICLN vs. BATT - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 26.14% return, which is significantly higher than BATT's 14.35% return.

ICLN

1D
-4.44%
1M
-7.52%
YTD
26.14%
6M
25.31%
1Y
64.46%
3Y*
6.74%
5Y*
-0.79%
10Y*
11.38%

BATT

1D
-5.00%
1M
-5.57%
YTD
14.35%
6M
13.17%
1Y
80.97%
3Y*
10.67%
5Y*
1.08%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICLN vs. BATT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		26.14%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-8.84%
BATT
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF		14.35%59.70%-13.93%-7.05%-32.25%16.52%44.43%-2.40%-42.27%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and BATT is 0.64, 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

0.64

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.65

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2018

0.66

The correlation between ICLN and BATT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. BATT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICLN
BATT

Utilities

34.6%

-

Industrials

28.7%
16.8%

Energy

23.7%

-

Technology

10.5%
5.1%

Basic Materials

1.3%
58.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
18.0%

Communication Services

-

0.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

0.3%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

ICLN
34.6%
BATT

-

Industrials

ICLN
28.7%
BATT
16.8%

Energy

ICLN
23.7%
BATT

-

Technology

ICLN
10.5%
BATT
5.1%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.3%
BATT
58.7%

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
BATT
18.0%

Communication Services

ICLN

-

BATT
0.0%

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

BATT

-

Financial Services

ICLN

-

BATT
0.3%

Healthcare

ICLN

-

BATT

-

Real Estate

ICLN

-

BATT

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF

Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT
Often compared with BATT:
BATT vs. LITBATT vs. LITPBATT vs. IDRVBATT vs. TDVBATT vs. CARSBATT vs. ILITBATT vs. IVW

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. BATT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
BATT
BATT Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
BATT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BATT Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
BATT Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
BATT Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
BATT Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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.

ICLN vs. BATT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT). 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.

ICLNBATTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.27
2.49

-0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.84
2.88

-0.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.39

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.96

4.78

-0.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.73

15.62

-1.89

ICLN vs. BATT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the BATT Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and BATT, 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...

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. BATT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than BATT's maximum drawdown of -69.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and BATT.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICLNBATTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-69.38%

-17.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.38%

-17.03%

+0.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.18%

-47.65%

+4.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.16%

-61.98%

+4.82%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-66.75%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-43.56%

-12.48%

-31.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.53%

-34.60%

-31.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.71%

5.20%

-0.49%

Volatility

ICLN vs. BATT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 13.47% compared to Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF (BATT) at 12.72%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BATT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICLNBATTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.47%

12.72%

+0.75%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.14%

27.15%

-4.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.52%

32.69%

-4.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.69%

29.95%

-2.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.33%

30.76%

-3.43%

ICLN vs. BATT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BATT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. BATT - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than BATT's 1.62% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BATT
Amplify Lithium & Battery Technology ETF		1.62%1.85%3.17%3.23%4.14%2.32%0.21%3.22%0.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		0.89%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

ICLN and BATT have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to BATT (12.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs BATT's -69.38%.

On 5-year performance, BATT leads with 1.08% vs -0.79% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, BATT has been the lower-risk option at 12.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BATT has performed better with a 1.08% return vs -0.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for BATT.

BATT has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.89% for ICLN.

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while BATT is Lithium & Battery Metals. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.59% for BATT.

BATT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 2.27), 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 ICLN and BATT

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