PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ICLN vs. SCHG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ICLN vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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 28.34% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 5.03% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has underperformed SCHG with an annualized return of 11.52%, while SCHG has yielded a comparatively higher 18.85% annualized return.


ICLN

1D
0.80%
1M
-3.23%
YTD
28.34%
6M
28.17%
1Y
61.48%
3Y*
5.46%
5Y*
-0.17%
10Y*
11.52%

SCHG

1D
2.39%
1M
-0.12%
YTD
5.03%
6M
5.98%
1Y
23.20%
3Y*
23.27%
5Y*
14.85%
10Y*
18.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICLN vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
28.34%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-9.03%21.47%
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
5.03%17.50%34.95%50.10%-31.80%28.11%39.14%36.02%-1.36%28.05%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and SCHG is 0.54, 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

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.43

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2009

0.61

The correlation between ICLN and SCHG shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (3 years) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICLN vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ICLN
SCHG

Utilities

35.4%
0.4%

Industrials

26.2%
6.0%

Energy

24.9%
0.7%

Technology

10.8%
46.7%

Basic Materials

1.3%
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
12.4%

Communication Services

-

15.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.6%

Financial Services

-

6.6%

Healthcare

-

8.4%

Real Estate

-

0.5%

Utilities

ICLN
35.4%
SCHG
0.4%

Industrials

ICLN
26.2%
SCHG
6.0%

Energy

ICLN
24.9%
SCHG
0.7%

Technology

ICLN
10.8%
SCHG
46.7%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.3%
SCHG
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
SCHG
12.4%

Communication Services

ICLN

-

SCHG
15.3%

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

SCHG
1.6%

Financial Services

ICLN

-

SCHG
6.6%

Healthcare

ICLN

-

SCHG
8.4%

Real Estate

ICLN

-

SCHG
0.5%

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. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

SCHG
SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
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. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.


ICLNSCHGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.74

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.26

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.77

1.42

+2.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.82

4.68

+9.14

ICLN vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is higher than the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and SCHG, 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...

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than SCHG's maximum drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and SCHG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ICLNSCHGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-34.59%

-52.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.38%

-16.41%

+0.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.18%

-23.39%

-19.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.16%

-34.59%

-22.57%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-66.75%

-34.59%

-32.16%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-42.58%

-3.06%

-39.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.55%

-5.20%

-61.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.46%

4.97%

-0.51%

Volatility

ICLN vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 12.94% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 5.59%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ICLNSCHGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.94%

5.59%

+7.35%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.57%

12.52%

+10.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.28%

16.09%

+12.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.55%

22.35%

+5.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.33%

21.60%

+5.73%

ICLN vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio.


Dividends

ICLN vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than SCHG's 0.37% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
1.54%1.63%1.85%1.59%0.89%1.18%0.34%1.36%2.77%2.49%3.88%2.36%
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
0.37%0.36%0.39%0.46%0.55%0.42%0.52%0.82%1.27%1.01%1.04%1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions


ICLN and SCHG have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICLN has higher volatility (12.94%) compared to SCHG (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

On 10-year performance, SCHG leads with 18.85% vs 11.52% for ICLN. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 18.85% return vs 11.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SCHG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ICLN.

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 0.37% for SCHG.

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while SCHG is Large Cap Growth Equities. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while SCHG tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.04% for SCHG.

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.45), 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 SCHG

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