ICLN vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. ICLN is passively managed, while FRNW is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ICLN returned 8.92%/yr vs 10.12%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ICLN charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FRNW.

Performance

ICLN vs. FRNW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 40.54% return, which is significantly higher than FRNW's 34.11% return.

ICLN

• 1D: -2.78%
• 1M: 11.22%
• YTD: 40.54%
• 6M: 39.84%
• 1Y: 83.73%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 2.10%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

FRNW

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 7.89%
• YTD: 34.11%
• 6M: 34.18%
• 1Y: 86.03%
• 3Y*: 10.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	40.54%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-1.01%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and FRNW is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.95

The correlation between ICLN and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	FRNW
Utilities	32.8%	43.3%
Industrials	27.8%	30.1%
Energy	26.4%	21.0%
Technology	11.1%	5.5%
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. FRNW — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 87
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 90
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. FRNW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW). 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.20	3.39	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	4.06	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.51	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.50	7.47	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.35	23.29	-1.94
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. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.20, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 3.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and FRNW, 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	FRNW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.20	3.39	-0.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.08	0.09	-0.17

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. FRNW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than FRNW's maximum drawdown of -59.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and FRNW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	FRNW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-59.37%	-27.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.22%	-11.58%	+0.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-45.27%	+2.09%
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	-37.13%	-3.15%	-33.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.61%	-33.33%	-33.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	3.71%	+0.23%

Volatility

ICLN vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 9.53% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 8.16%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRNW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	FRNW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.53%	8.16%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.21%	17.79%	+2.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.38%	25.61%	+0.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.21%	28.35%	-1.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.20%	28.35%	-1.15%

ICLN vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than FRNW's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, more than FRNW's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.16%	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 FRNW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ICLN and FRNW 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.

Which is riskier, ICLN or FRNW?

ICLN has higher volatility (9.53%) compared to FRNW (8.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or FRNW?

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 10.12% vs 8.92% for ICLN. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 8.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or FRNW?

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 10.12% return vs 8.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or FRNW?

FRNW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for ICLN.

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

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.94% for FRNW.

What is the main difference between ICLN and FRNW?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for ICLN and 0.39% for FRNW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 3.20), 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.