PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

ICLN vs. CNRG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ICLN tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index while CNRG tracks the S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICLN returned -3.63%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for CNRG. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNRG.

Performance

ICLN vs. CNRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). 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 9.79% return, which is significantly higher than CNRG's 5.42% return.

ICLN

1D
2.51%
1M
-8.54%
6M
-1.05%
YTD
9.79%
1Y
34.36%
3Y*
3.25%
5Y*
-3.63%
10Y*
8.70%
ALL TIME*
-3.80%

CNRG

1D
3.34%
1M
-10.30%
6M
-3.90%
YTD
5.42%
1Y
44.75%
3Y*
7.43%
5Y*
0.29%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
17.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

CNRG

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
$1.15M$1.05M$1.48M

ICLN

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
$126.79M$99.18M$122.18M

ICLN vs. CNRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		9.79%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-0.09%
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF		5.42%50.23%-14.48%-11.55%-7.98%-15.68%138.35%63.26%-2.05%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and CNRG is 0.92, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.92

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.88

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 23, 2018

0.88

The correlation between ICLN and CNRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. CNRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICLN
CNRG

Utilities

40.9%
35.8%

Technology

25.0%
19.0%

Industrials

22.6%
31.1%

Energy

8.3%
12.0%

Basic Materials

1.7%

-

Financial Services

0.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
2.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

ICLN
40.9%
CNRG
35.8%

Technology

ICLN
25.0%
CNRG
19.0%

Industrials

ICLN
22.6%
CNRG
31.1%

Energy

ICLN
8.3%
CNRG
12.0%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.7%
CNRG

-

Financial Services

ICLN
0.1%
CNRG

-

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
CNRG
2.0%

Communication Services

ICLN

-

CNRG

-

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

CNRG

-

Healthcare

ICLN

-

CNRG

-

Real Estate

ICLN

-

CNRG

-

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

SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF

Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. LITICLN vs. ACES
Often compared with CNRG:
CNRG vs. TANCNRG vs. QCLNCNRG vs. BKLCCNRG vs. KRBNCNRG vs. CURECNRG vs. LCTDCNRG vs. SLX

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. CNRG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank
CNRG
CNRG Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
CNRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNRG Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
CNRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNRG Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ICLN vs. CNRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG). 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.

ICLNCNRGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.13
1.12

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.62
1.63

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.20

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.20

1.42

-0.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.12

4.38

-0.27

ICLN vs. CNRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is comparable to the CNRG Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and CNRG, 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. CNRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than CNRG's maximum drawdown of -68.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and CNRG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICLNCNRGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-68.49%

-18.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.78%

-31.56%

+2.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-36.96%

-43.07%

+6.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.16%

-59.17%

+2.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-66.75%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-50.88%

-31.45%

-19.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.42%

-31.66%

-34.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.37%

10.23%

-1.86%

Volatility

ICLN vs. CNRG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 10.98%, while SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF (CNRG) has a volatility of 13.56%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICLNCNRGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.98%

13.56%

-2.58%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

25.30%

29.64%

-4.34%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

30.70%

40.33%

-9.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.06%

34.86%

-6.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.53%

36.14%

-8.61%

ICLN vs. CNRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CNRG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. CNRG - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, less than CNRG's 1.30% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNRG
SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF		1.30%1.46%1.34%1.17%1.23%1.34%0.69%1.16%0.35%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		1.02%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

With a correlation of 0.92, ICLN and CNRG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

CNRG has higher volatility (13.56%) compared to ICLN (10.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs CNRG's -68.49%.

On 5-year performance, CNRG leads with 0.29% vs -3.63% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 10.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, CNRG has performed better with a 0.29% return vs -3.63%. 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 0.45% for CNRG.

CNRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 1.02% for ICLN.

ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while CNRG tracks S&P Kensho Clean Power Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.45% for CNRG.

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.13 vs 1.12), 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 CNRG

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