ICLN vs. PG
ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) is Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while PG (The Procter & Gamble Company) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 11.67%/yr vs 8.96%/yr for PG. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
ICLN vs. PG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 27.33% return, which is significantly higher than PG's 5.93% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has outperformed PG with an annualized return of 11.67%, while PG has yielded a comparatively lower 8.96% annualized return.
ICLN
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- -5.47%
- YTD
- 27.33%
- 6M
- 27.01%
- 1Y
- 60.20%
- 3Y*
- 5.25%
- 5Y*
- -0.21%
- 10Y*
- 11.67%
PG
- 1D
- 0.86%
- 1M
- 5.68%
- YTD
- 5.93%
- 6M
- 6.28%
- 1Y
- -3.97%
- 3Y*
- 3.69%
- 5Y*
- 4.73%
- 10Y*
- 8.96%
ICLN vs. PG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF | 27.33% | 47.05% | -25.72% | -20.41% | -5.43% | -24.18% | 141.82% | 44.36% | -9.03% | 21.47% |
PG The Procter & Gamble Company | 5.93% | -12.26% | 17.25% | -0.86% | -5.05% | 20.52% | 14.15% | 39.70% | 3.57% | 12.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICLN and PG is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.04 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008 | 0.25 |
The correlation between ICLN and PG shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (1 year) to 0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ICLN vs. PG — Risk / Return Rank
ICLN
PG
ICLN vs. PG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and The Procter & Gamble Company (PG). 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 | PG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.47 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.04 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 0.97 | +0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.73 | -0.37 | +4.10 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.84 | -0.68 | +14.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ICLN vs. PG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than PG's maximum drawdown of -54.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and PG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICLN | PG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.15% | -54.25% | -32.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.38% | -15.52% | -0.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.18% | -21.15% | -22.03% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -57.16% | -23.77% | -33.39% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -66.75% | -23.77% | -42.98% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -43.03% | -13.29% | -29.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -66.56% | -12.16% | -54.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.41% | 8.80% | -4.39% |
Volatility
ICLN vs. PG - Volatility Comparison
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 12.97% compared to The Procter & Gamble Company (PG) at 6.99%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICLN | PG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.97% | 6.99% | +5.98% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.62% | 15.01% | +7.61% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.21% | 18.78% | +9.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.55% | 17.82% | +9.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.32% | 19.05% | +8.27% |
Dividends
ICLN vs. PG - Dividend Comparison
ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than PG's 2.85% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF | 1.28% | 1.63% | 1.85% | 1.59% | 0.89% | 1.18% | 0.34% | 1.36% | 2.77% | 2.49% | 3.88% | 2.36% |
PG The Procter & Gamble Company | 2.85% | 2.91% | 2.36% | 2.55% | 2.38% | 2.08% | 2.24% | 2.37% | 3.09% | 2.98% | 3.18% | 3.31% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICLN and PG have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ICLN has higher volatility (12.97%) compared to PG (6.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs PG's -54.25%.
ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs -0.30), 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.
Find the right allocation for ICLN and PG
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