ICLN vs. EFRA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and EFRA (iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while EFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ICLN returned 6.74%/yr vs 11.51%/yr for EFRA. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for EFRA.

Performance

ICLN vs. EFRA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 26.14% return, which is significantly higher than EFRA's 5.65% 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%

EFRA

• 1D: -1.00%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: 5.65%
• 6M: 4.75%
• 1Y: 10.45%
• 3Y*: 11.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. EFRA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	26.14%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	6.74%
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	5.65%	13.76%	8.09%	14.49%	8.75%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and EFRA is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2022	0.59

The correlation between ICLN and EFRA shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.59 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICLN vs. EFRA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	EFRA
Utilities	34.6%	24.2%
Industrials	28.7%	64.1%
Energy	23.7%	-
Technology	10.5%	2.8%
Basic Materials	1.3%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	6.4%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. EFRA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 70
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 75

EFRA

EFRA Risk / Return Rank: 21
EFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
EFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
EFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
EFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
EFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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. EFRA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA). 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	EFRA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	0.72	+1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	1.11	+1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.13	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.96	0.94	+3.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.73	2.51	+11.21

ICLN vs. EFRA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is higher than the EFRA Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and EFRA, 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. EFRA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than EFRA's maximum drawdown of -16.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and EFRA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	EFRA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-16.25%	-70.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.38%	-11.20%	-5.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-16.25%	-26.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.56%	-6.38%	-37.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.53%	-3.67%	-62.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	4.17%	+0.54%

Volatility

ICLN vs. EFRA - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 13.47% compared to iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) at 4.96%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFRA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	EFRA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.47%	4.96%	+8.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.14%	11.79%	+11.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.52%	14.59%	+13.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.69%	15.58%	+12.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.33%	15.58%	+11.75%

ICLN vs. EFRA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EFRA's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. EFRA - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than EFRA's 4.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	4.17%	4.34%	3.79%	1.85%	0.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both ICLN and EFRA in my portfolio?

ICLN and EFRA have a correlation of 0.46, 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 EFRA?

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to EFRA (4.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs EFRA's -16.25%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or EFRA?

On 3-year performance, EFRA leads with 11.51% vs 6.74% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, EFRA has been the lower-risk option at 4.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or EFRA?

Over the 3-year period, EFRA has performed better with a 11.51% return vs 6.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or EFRA?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for EFRA.

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

EFRA has the higher dividend yield at 4.17%, compared with 0.89% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between ICLN and EFRA?

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while EFRA is Industrials Equities. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while EFRA tracks FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.47% for EFRA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 0.72), 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.