PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

ICLN vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 4, 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 83.73% vs 124.45% for IBAT. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.46%/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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 40.54% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 64.52% 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%

IBAT

1D
-1.22%
1M
10.03%
YTD
64.52%
6M
57.93%
1Y
124.45%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICLN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		40.54%47.05%-15.82%
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		64.52%32.09%-13.19%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and IBAT is 0.79, 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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 22, 2024

0.73

The correlation between ICLN and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICLN
IBAT

Utilities

32.8%
0.4%

Industrials

27.8%
41.6%

Energy

26.4%
3.4%

Technology

11.1%
23.4%

Basic Materials

1.1%
29.0%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
1.9%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

ICLN
32.8%
IBAT
0.4%

Industrials

ICLN
27.8%
IBAT
41.6%

Energy

ICLN
26.4%
IBAT
3.4%

Technology

ICLN
11.1%
IBAT
23.4%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.1%
IBAT
29.0%

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
IBAT
1.9%

Communication Services

ICLN

-

IBAT

-

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

IBAT

-

Financial Services

ICLN

-

IBAT

-

Healthcare

ICLN

-

IBAT

-

Real Estate

ICLN

-

IBAT

-

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

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT
Often compared with IBAT:
IBAT vs. IONIBAT vs. LITIBAT vs. GRIDIBAT vs. QCLNIBAT vs. CRAKIBAT vs. HYDRIBAT vs. IAUM

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: 8787
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
IBAT
IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
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. 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.

ICLNIBATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.20
4.75

-1.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.86
5.12

-1.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.68

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.50

10.21

-2.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.35

26.91

-5.56

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. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.20, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.75. 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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

ICLNIBATDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.20

4.75

-1.56

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

1.41

-1.49

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICLNIBATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-28.26%

-58.89%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.22%

-12.25%

+1.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.18%

—

—

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%

-1.25%

-35.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.61%

-7.74%

-58.87%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.94%

4.64%

-0.70%

Volatility

ICLN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 9.53%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 10.25%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICLNIBATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.53%

10.25%

-0.72%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.21%

20.28%

-0.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.38%

26.35%

+0.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.21%

23.83%

+3.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.20%

23.83%

+3.37%

ICLN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.46% 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 1.16%, more than IBAT's 0.70% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IBAT
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF		0.70%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		1.16%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

ICLN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IBAT has higher volatility (10.25%) compared to ICLN (9.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 124.45% vs 83.73% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 9.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 124.45% return vs 83.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.70% for IBAT.

ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for ICLN and 0.47% for IBAT.

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ICLN and IBAT

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