PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

ICLN vs. FRNW

Last updated Jun 24, 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 6.74%/yr vs 7.81%/yr for FRNW. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.39% expense ratio.

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 26.14% return, which is significantly higher than FRNW's 20.76% 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%

FRNW

1D
-3.60%
1M
-8.48%
YTD
20.76%
6M
19.11%
1Y
63.79%
3Y*
7.81%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICLN vs. FRNW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		26.14%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%0.01%
FRNW
Fidelity Clean Energy ETF		20.76%53.20%-21.11%-19.64%-11.46%-2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and FRNW is 0.93, 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

0.93

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021

0.95

The correlation between ICLN and FRNW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. FRNW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICLN
FRNW

Utilities

34.6%
45.2%

Industrials

28.7%
28.3%

Energy

23.7%
20.5%

Technology

10.5%
5.7%

Basic Materials

1.3%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

ICLN
34.6%
FRNW
45.2%

Industrials

ICLN
28.7%
FRNW
28.3%

Energy

ICLN
23.7%
FRNW
20.5%

Technology

ICLN
10.5%
FRNW
5.7%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.3%
FRNW

-

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
FRNW

-

Communication Services

ICLN

-

FRNW

-

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

FRNW

-

Financial Services

ICLN

-

FRNW

-

Healthcare

ICLN

-

FRNW

-

Real Estate

ICLN

-

FRNW

-

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

Fidelity Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT
Often compared with FRNW:
FRNW vs. QCLNFRNW vs. CNRGFRNW vs. VCLNFRNW vs. QQQFRNW vs. VOOFRNW vs. FDTXFRNW vs. BATT

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: 7070
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
FRNW
FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.

ICLNFRNWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.27
2.39

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.84
3.03

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.37

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.96

4.52

-0.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.73

14.82

-1.10

ICLN vs. FRNW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the FRNW Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICLNFRNWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-59.37%

-27.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.38%

-14.20%

-2.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.18%

-45.14%

+1.96%

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%

-12.80%

-30.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.53%

-33.06%

-33.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.71%

4.32%

+0.39%

Volatility

ICLN vs. FRNW - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 13.47% compared to Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) at 10.92%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICLNFRNWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.47%

10.92%

+2.55%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.14%

19.84%

+3.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.52%

26.88%

+1.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.69%

28.55%

-0.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.33%

28.55%

-1.22%

ICLN vs. FRNW - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ICLN vs. FRNW - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than FRNW's 1.13% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FRNW
Fidelity Clean Energy ETF		1.13%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		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

With a correlation of 0.93, 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.

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to FRNW (10.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs FRNW's -59.37%.

On 3-year performance, FRNW leads with 7.81% vs 6.74% for ICLN. Both ETFs have the same 0.39% expense ratio. On volatility, FRNW has been the lower-risk option at 10.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, FRNW has performed better with a 7.81% return vs 6.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ICLN and FRNW have the same expense ratio: 0.39% per year.

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 1.13%, compared with 0.89% for ICLN.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity.

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.27), 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 FRNW

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