ICLN vs. XME
ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and XME (SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while XME is a Materials fund tracking the S&P Metals & Mining Select Industry Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 11.67%/yr vs 19.60%/yr for XME. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XME.
Performance
ICLN vs. XME - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 27.33% return, which is significantly higher than XME's 16.32% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has underperformed XME with an annualized return of 11.67%, while XME has yielded a comparatively higher 19.60% 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%
XME
- 1D
- 1.77%
- 1M
- -2.35%
- YTD
- 16.32%
- 6M
- 18.13%
- 1Y
- 86.41%
- 3Y*
- 35.23%
- 5Y*
- 21.78%
- 10Y*
- 19.60%
ICLN vs. XME - 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% |
XME SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF | 16.32% | 83.47% | -4.54% | 21.51% | 13.13% | 34.92% | 15.95% | 14.69% | -26.78% | 21.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICLN and XME 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008 | 0.58 |
The correlation between ICLN and XME has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.
ICLN vs. XME - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ICLN
XME
Utilities
-
Industrials
Energy
Technology
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
ICLN
XME
-
Industrials
ICLN
XME
Energy
ICLN
XME
Technology
ICLN
XME
Basic Materials
ICLN
XME
Consumer Cyclical
ICLN
XME
-
Communication Services
ICLN
-
XME
-
Consumer Defensive
ICLN
-
XME
Financial Services
ICLN
-
XME
-
Healthcare
ICLN
-
XME
-
Real Estate
ICLN
-
XME
-
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. XME — Risk / Return Rank
ICLN
XME
ICLN vs. XME - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME). 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 | XME | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.37 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.73 | 3.84 | -0.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.84 | 9.58 | +4.26 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ICLN vs. XME - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, roughly equal to the maximum XME drawdown of -85.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and XME.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICLN | XME | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -87.15% | -85.89% | -1.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.38% | -22.60% | +6.22% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -43.18% | -30.47% | -12.71% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -57.16% | -37.27% | -19.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -66.75% | -61.69% | -5.06% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -43.03% | -9.33% | -33.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -66.56% | -44.09% | -22.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.41% | 9.05% | -4.64% |
Volatility
ICLN vs. XME - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 12.97%, while SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME) has a volatility of 15.26%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XME based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICLN | XME | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.97% | 15.26% | -2.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.62% | 28.51% | -5.89% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.21% | 36.11% | -7.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.55% | 32.84% | -5.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.32% | 32.96% | -5.64% |
ICLN vs. XME - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than XME's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
ICLN vs. XME - Dividend Comparison
ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, more than XME's 0.32% 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% |
XME SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF | 0.32% | 0.38% | 0.65% | 1.00% | 1.64% | 0.70% | 0.99% | 2.43% | 2.23% | 1.15% | 1.02% | 2.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ICLN and XME 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.
XME has higher volatility (15.26%) compared to ICLN (12.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ICLN dropped -87.15% vs XME's -85.89%.
On 10-year performance, XME leads with 19.60% vs 11.67% for ICLN. On fees, XME is cheaper at 0.35% 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.
Over the 10-year period, XME has performed better with a 19.60% return vs 11.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XME is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ICLN.
ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.32% for XME.
ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while XME is Materials. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while XME tracks S&P Metals & Mining Select Industry Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.35% for XME.
XME currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.17), 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 XME
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