ICLN vs. PBW

Last updated Jul 30, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - ICLN tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Index while PBW tracks the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 8.12%/yr vs 6.26%/yr for PBW. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for PBW.

Performance

ICLN vs. PBW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 2.95% return, which is significantly higher than PBW's -1.56% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has outperformed PBW with an annualized return of 8.12%, while PBW has yielded a comparatively lower 6.26% annualized return.

ICLN

• 1D: -1.92%
• 1M: -15.14%
• 6M: -11.11%
• YTD: 2.95%
• 1Y: 24.16%
• 3Y*: -0.98%
• 5Y*: -4.52%
• 10Y*: 8.12%
• ALL TIME*: -4.14%

PBW

• 1D: -3.99%
• 1M: -21.63%
• 6M: -16.79%
• YTD: -1.56%
• 1Y: 30.00%
• 3Y*: -9.28%
• 5Y*: -16.68%
• 10Y*: 6.26%
• ALL TIME*: -2.91%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	$86.79M	$86.16M	$120.19M
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	$29.14M	$27.47M	$34.67M

ICLN vs. PBW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	2.95%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-9.03%	21.47%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	-1.56%	53.96%	-30.77%	-20.03%	-44.55%	-29.86%	204.82%	62.58%	-14.11%	39.92%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and PBW is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008	0.78

The correlation between ICLN and PBW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. PBW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	PBW
Utilities	40.4%	9.3%
Technology	24.7%	23.4%
Industrials	22.8%	25.3%
Energy	8.9%	4.1%
Basic Materials	1.6%	16.3%
Financial Services	0.1%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	15.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	2.1%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. PBW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 30
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 29
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 31

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 28
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 28
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 29

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ICLN vs. PBW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW). 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	PBW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.80	0.69	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	1.17	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.14	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.84	0.84	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.06	2.62	+0.44

ICLN vs. PBW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 0.80, which is comparable to the PBW Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and PBW, 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. PBW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, roughly equal to the maximum PBW drawdown of -89.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and PBW.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	PBW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-89.02%	+1.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.78%	-36.09%	+7.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.82%	-67.96%	+27.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	-84.50%	+27.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	-89.02%	+22.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-53.94%	-75.19%	+21.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.43%	-62.94%	-3.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.91%	11.49%	-3.58%

Volatility

ICLN vs. PBW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 10.03%, while Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a volatility of 12.86%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	PBW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.03%	12.86%	-2.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.07%	32.89%	-7.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.25%	43.80%	-13.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.97%	43.51%	-15.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.48%	39.19%	-11.71%

ICLN vs. PBW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than PBW's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. PBW - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than PBW's 1.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.09%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	1.58%	0.79%	2.84%	3.68%	4.21%	1.71%	0.44%	1.45%	2.04%	1.28%	2.68%	1.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICLN and PBW in my portfolio?

ICLN and PBW have a correlation of 0.82, 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 PBW?

PBW has higher volatility (12.86%) compared to ICLN (10.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs PBW's -89.02%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or PBW?

On 10-year performance, ICLN leads with 8.12% vs 6.26% for PBW. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 10.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or PBW?

Over the 10-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 8.12% return vs 6.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or PBW?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

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

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 1.58%, compared with 1.09% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between ICLN and PBW?

ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX). They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.61% for PBW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.80 vs 0.69), 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.