ICLN vs. FMED

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and FMED (Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while FMED is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. ICLN is passively managed, while FMED is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ICLN returned 5.46%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for FMED. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FMED.

Performance

ICLN vs. FMED - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 28.34% return, which is significantly higher than FMED's -4.75% return.

ICLN

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -3.23%
• YTD: 28.34%
• 6M: 28.17%
• 1Y: 61.48%
• 3Y*: 5.46%
• 5Y*: -0.17%
• 10Y*: 11.52%

FMED

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 7.10%
• YTD: -4.75%
• 6M: -6.17%
• 1Y: 8.53%
• 3Y*: 0.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. FMED - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	28.34%	47.05%	-25.72%	-15.17%
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	-4.75%	9.69%	2.29%	-3.59%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and FMED is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.40

The correlation between ICLN and FMED shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.40 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICLN vs. FMED - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	FMED
Utilities	35.4%	-
Industrials	26.2%	-
Energy	24.9%	-
Technology	10.8%	0.9%
Basic Materials	1.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	97.1%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. FMED — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 73
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 79

FMED

FMED Risk / Return Rank: 15
FMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FMED Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FMED Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. FMED - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED). 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	FMED	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	0.44	+1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	0.79	+1.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.09	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.77	0.47	+3.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.82	1.03	+12.78

ICLN vs. FMED - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is higher than the FMED Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and FMED, 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. FMED - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than FMED's maximum drawdown of -21.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and FMED.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	FMED	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-21.84%	-65.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.38%	-18.33%	+1.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-21.84%	-21.34%
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	-42.58%	-10.64%	-31.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.55%	-7.09%	-59.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	8.27%	-3.81%

Volatility

ICLN vs. FMED - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 12.94% compared to Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) at 7.50%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMED based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	FMED	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.94%	7.50%	+5.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.57%	15.01%	+7.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.28%	19.37%	+8.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.55%	18.57%	+8.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.33%	18.57%	+8.76%

ICLN vs. FMED - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than FMED's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. FMED - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, while FMED has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.54%	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 FMED in my portfolio?

ICLN and FMED have a correlation of 0.30, 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 FMED?

ICLN has higher volatility (12.94%) compared to FMED (7.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs FMED's -21.84%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or FMED?

On 3-year performance, ICLN leads with 5.46% vs 0.73% for FMED. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FMED has been the lower-risk option at 7.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or FMED?

Over the 3-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 5.46% return vs 0.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or FMED?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FMED.

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

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 0.00% for FMED.

What is the main difference between ICLN and FMED?

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while FMED is Health & Biotech Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.50% for FMED.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 0.44), 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.