ICLN vs. IBAT

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds from iShares - ICLN tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ICLN returned 37.76% vs 74.20% for IBAT. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

ICLN vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 11.99% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 36.79% return.

ICLN

• 1D: -3.83%
• 1M: -11.86%
• 6M: 5.08%
• YTD: 11.99%
• 1Y: 37.76%
• 3Y*: 0.28%
• 5Y*: -2.37%
• 10Y*: 9.13%

IBAT

• 1D: -4.12%
• 1M: -13.20%
• 6M: 25.71%
• YTD: 36.79%
• 1Y: 74.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	11.99%	47.05%	-15.70%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	36.79%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and IBAT is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.74

The correlation between ICLN and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	IBAT
Utilities	36.7%	0.3%
Energy	30.2%	1.8%
Industrials	27.6%	39.5%
Technology	3.1%	20.4%
Basic Materials	1.4%	35.7%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	1.5%
Financial Services	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 41
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 39
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 44

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 85
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). 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	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	2.47	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.78	2.87	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.39	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	4.09	-2.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	12.91	-7.06

ICLN vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 2.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and IBAT, 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. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-28.26%	-58.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.53%	-18.25%	-4.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.00%	—	—
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	-49.90%	-18.25%	-31.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.46%	-7.80%	-58.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.47%	5.77%	+0.70%

Volatility

ICLN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 11.55%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 12.25%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.55%	12.25%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.71%	25.45%	-0.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.79%	30.21%	-0.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.93%	25.53%	+2.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.42%	25.53%	+1.89%

ICLN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ICLN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, more than IBAT's 0.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.78%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.00%	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 IBAT in my portfolio?

ICLN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.81, 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 IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (12.25%) compared to ICLN (11.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 74.20% vs 37.76% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 11.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 74.20% return vs 37.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or IBAT?

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

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

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.78% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between ICLN and IBAT?

ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.27), 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.