ICLN vs. FCNTX

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and FCNTX (Fidelity Contrafund) are both funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while FCNTX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 11.27%/yr vs 17.20%/yr for FCNTX. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.39% expense ratio.

Performance

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 27.81% return, which is significantly higher than FCNTX's 6.03% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has underperformed FCNTX with an annualized return of 11.27%, while FCNTX has yielded a comparatively higher 17.20% annualized return.

ICLN

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: -0.76%
• YTD: 27.81%
• 6M: 26.73%
• 1Y: 65.16%
• 3Y*: 5.80%
• 5Y*: 0.12%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

FCNTX

• 1D: -2.98%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 6.03%
• 6M: 6.20%
• 1Y: 19.84%
• 3Y*: 26.22%
• 5Y*: 14.50%
• 10Y*: 17.20%

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

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	27.81%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-9.03%	21.47%
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	6.03%	21.76%	36.00%	38.67%	-28.31%	24.52%	32.48%	30.00%	-3.81%	32.18%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and FCNTX is 0.50, 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	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008	0.61

The correlation between ICLN and FCNTX shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (3 years) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	FCNTX
Utilities	32.8%	0.5%
Industrials	27.8%	8.6%
Energy	26.4%	3.6%
Technology	11.1%	27.0%
Basic Materials	1.1%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	10.1%
Communication Services	-	21.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.7%
Financial Services	-	13.8%
Healthcare	-	9.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. FCNTX — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 80
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 70
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 85

FCNTX

FCNTX Risk / Return Rank: 30
FCNTX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FCNTX Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FCNTX Omega Ratio Rank: 28
FCNTX Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
FCNTX Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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. FCNTX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	ICLN	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	1.49	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	2.06	+0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.27	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.66	1.89	+3.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.11	8.00	+8.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is higher than the FCNTX Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and FCNTX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ICLN	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.38	1.49	+0.89
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.00	0.76	-0.75
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	0.88	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.09	0.77	-0.87

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than FCNTX's maximum drawdown of -49.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and FCNTX.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	FCNTX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-49.19%	-37.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.58%	-11.30%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-19.75%	-23.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	-32.59%	-24.57%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	-32.59%	-34.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-42.82%	-2.98%	-39.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.59%	-8.16%	-58.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	2.66%	+1.40%

Volatility

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 12.28% compared to Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) at 4.35%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCNTX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	FCNTX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.28%	4.35%	+7.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.81%	10.93%	+10.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.62%	14.35%	+13.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.43%	19.19%	+8.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.31%	19.70%	+7.61%

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ICLN and FCNTX have an expense ratio of 0.39%.

Dividends

ICLN vs. FCNTX - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than FCNTX's 4.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	4.40%	5.21%	4.19%	3.78%	11.87%	10.80%	8.01%	4.16%	7.46%	6.08%	3.81%	5.33%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.28%	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 FCNTX in my portfolio?

ICLN and FCNTX have a correlation of 0.50, 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 FCNTX?

ICLN has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to FCNTX (4.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs FCNTX's -49.19%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 1.49), 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.