ICLN vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ICLN returned 83.73% vs 4.54% for IBIC. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLN charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

ICLN vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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 IBIC's 2.37% 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%

IBIC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 2.37%
• 6M: 2.51%
• 1Y: 4.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	40.54%	47.05%	-25.72%	0.28%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.37%	4.96%	5.25%	2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and IBIC is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.08

The correlation between ICLN and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. IBIC — 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

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.20	5.05	-1.85
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	9.12	-5.26
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	2.24	-0.77
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.50	17.27	-9.77
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	21.35	67.45	-46.10
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. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.20, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 5.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and IBIC, 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	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.20	5.05	-1.85
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	3.49	-3.57

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-0.90%	-86.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.22%	-0.26%	-10.96%
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%	-0.13%	-37.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.61%	-0.10%	-66.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	0.07%	+3.87%

Volatility

ICLN vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 9.53% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.33%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.53%	0.33%	+9.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.21%	0.67%	+19.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.38%	0.90%	+25.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.21%	1.58%	+25.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.20%	1.58%	+25.62%

ICLN vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, less than IBIC's 3.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%	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

Can I hold both ICLN and IBIC in my portfolio?

ICLN and IBIC have a correlation of -0.21, 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 IBIC?

ICLN has higher volatility (9.53%) compared to IBIC (0.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, ICLN leads with 83.73% vs 4.54% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 83.73% return vs 4.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for ICLN.

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

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 1.16% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between ICLN and IBIC?

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for ICLN and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.05 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.