ICLN vs. PWER

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and PWER (Macquarie Energy Transition ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds. ICLN is passively managed, while PWER is actively managed. Over the past year, ICLN returned 83.73% vs 70.78% for PWER. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for PWER.

Performance

ICLN vs. PWER - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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 PWER's 31.35% 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%

PWER

• 1D: -1.00%
• 1M: 7.47%
• YTD: 31.35%
• 6M: 32.81%
• 1Y: 70.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. PWER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	40.54%	47.05%	-25.72%	11.31%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	31.35%	35.28%	-3.50%	9.72%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and PWER is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.66

The correlation between ICLN and PWER has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. PWER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	PWER
Utilities	32.8%	1.9%
Industrials	27.8%	12.2%
Energy	26.4%	41.1%
Technology	11.1%	3.8%
Basic Materials	1.1%	41.0%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. PWER — 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

PWER

PWER Risk / Return Rank: 93
PWER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
PWER Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
PWER Omega Ratio Rank: 90
PWER Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
PWER Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. PWER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER). 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.20	3.61	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	4.45	-0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.59	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.50	7.85	-0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.35	32.42	-11.08
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. PWER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 3.20, which is comparable to the PWER Sharpe Ratio of 3.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and PWER, 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	PWER	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.20	3.61	-0.42
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	1.24	-1.32

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. PWER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than PWER's maximum drawdown of -29.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and PWER.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	PWER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-29.68%	-57.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.22%	-9.07%	-2.15%
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%	-1.00%	-36.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.61%	-6.22%	-60.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	2.19%	+1.75%

Volatility

ICLN vs. PWER - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 9.53% compared to Macquarie Energy Transition ETF (PWER) at 6.20%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	PWER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.53%	6.20%	+3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.21%	15.55%	+4.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.38%	19.74%	+6.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.21%	23.37%	+3.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.20%	23.37%	+3.83%

ICLN vs. PWER - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than PWER's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. PWER - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, more than PWER's 1.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PWER Macquarie Energy Transition ETF	1.05%	1.37%	1.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICLN and PWER in my portfolio?

ICLN and PWER have a correlation of 0.56, 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 PWER?

ICLN has higher volatility (9.53%) compared to PWER (6.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs PWER's -29.68%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or PWER?

On 1-year performance, ICLN leads with 83.73% vs 70.78% for PWER. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, PWER has been the lower-risk option at 6.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or PWER?

Over the 1-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 83.73% return vs 70.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or PWER?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for PWER.

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

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 1.05% for PWER.

What is the main difference between ICLN and PWER?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Macquarie. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for ICLN and 0.80% for PWER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.61 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.