ICLN vs. URA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while URA is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 11.67%/yr vs 15.90%/yr for URA. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

ICLN vs. URA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 27.33% return, which is significantly higher than URA's 6.53% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has underperformed URA with an annualized return of 11.67%, while URA has yielded a comparatively higher 15.90% annualized return.

ICLN

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -4.39%
• YTD: 27.33%
• 6M: 27.01%
• 1Y: 60.81%
• 3Y*: 5.25%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: 11.67%

URA

• 1D: 1.54%
• 1M: -14.61%
• YTD: 6.53%
• 6M: 3.57%
• 1Y: 32.44%
• 3Y*: 32.17%
• 5Y*: 18.77%
• 10Y*: 15.90%

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

ICLN vs. URA - 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%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	6.53%	67.18%	-0.58%	46.25%	-11.32%	57.57%	41.33%	-3.54%	-22.11%	19.36%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and URA is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2010	0.49

The correlation between ICLN and URA shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (3 years) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ICLN vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	URA
Utilities	32.8%	9.2%
Industrials	27.8%	20.9%
Energy	26.4%	58.2%
Technology	11.1%	0.9%
Basic Materials	1.1%	5.0%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. URA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 75
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 81

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 23
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 23
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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. URA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Global X Uranium ETF (URA). 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	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	0.64	+1.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	1.21	+1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.14	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.73	1.04	+2.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.84	2.30	+11.54

ICLN vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and URA, 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. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-93.54%	+6.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.38%	-31.48%	+15.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-37.81%	-5.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	-37.90%	-19.26%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	-61.45%	-5.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.03%	-48.34%	+5.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.56%	-74.94%	+8.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	14.12%	-9.71%

Volatility

ICLN vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 12.97%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 17.69%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.97%	17.69%	-4.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.62%	39.95%	-17.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.21%	51.24%	-23.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.55%	43.96%	-16.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.32%	37.91%	-10.59%

ICLN vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than URA's 4.58% 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%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	4.58%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICLN and URA in my portfolio?

ICLN and URA have a correlation of 0.58, 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 URA?

URA has higher volatility (17.69%) compared to ICLN (12.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or URA?

On 10-year performance, URA leads with 15.90% vs 11.67% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ICLN has been the lower-risk option at 12.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ICLN or URA?

Over the 10-year period, URA has performed better with a 15.90% return vs 11.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or URA?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for URA.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 1.28% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between ICLN and URA?

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while URA is Commodity Producers Equities. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while URA tracks Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 0.64), 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.