PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ICLN vs. XRSG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ICLN vs. XRSG.L

Last updated Jul 21, 2026
Documentation

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and XRSG.L (Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while XRSG.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ICLN returned 8.88%/yr vs 10.27%/yr for XRSG.L. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for XRSG.L.

Performance

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C (XRSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ICLN is traded in USD, while XRSG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XRSG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 10.70% return, which is significantly lower than XRSG.L's 18.93% return. Over the past 10 years, ICLN has underperformed XRSG.L with an annualized return of 8.88%, while XRSG.L has yielded a comparatively higher 10.27% annualized return.

ICLN

1D
-1.25%
1M
-14.03%
6M
2.76%
YTD
10.70%
1Y
34.98%
3Y*
0.42%
5Y*
-3.25%
10Y*
8.88%
ALL TIME*
-3.76%

XRSG.L

1D
0.10%
1M
-0.55%
6M
12.48%
YTD
18.93%
1Y
33.15%
3Y*
15.57%
5Y*
6.83%
10Y*
10.27%
ALL TIME*
5.20%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		10.70%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-9.03%21.47%
XRSG.L
Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C		18.93%12.55%9.93%18.08%-20.94%14.38%19.35%25.48%-12.85%14.34%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and XRSG.L is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.47

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

0.48

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

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2015

0.45

The correlation between ICLN and XRSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ICLN
XRSG.L

Utilities

36.5%
2.7%

Technology

27.5%
14.8%

Industrials

24.4%
14.1%

Energy

8.8%
5.4%

Basic Materials

1.5%
4.4%

Financial Services

0.1%
17.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
9.2%

Communication Services

-

2.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.6%

Healthcare

-

20.3%

Real Estate

-

6.7%

Utilities

ICLN
36.5%
XRSG.L
2.7%

Technology

ICLN
27.5%
XRSG.L
14.8%

Industrials

ICLN
24.4%
XRSG.L
14.1%

Energy

ICLN
8.8%
XRSG.L
5.4%

Basic Materials

ICLN
1.5%
XRSG.L
4.4%

Financial Services

ICLN
0.1%
XRSG.L
17.7%

Consumer Cyclical

ICLN
0.1%
XRSG.L
9.2%

Communication Services

ICLN

-

XRSG.L
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

ICLN

-

XRSG.L
2.6%

Healthcare

ICLN

-

XRSG.L
20.3%

Real Estate

ICLN

-

XRSG.L
6.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C

Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT
Often compared with XRSG.L:
XRSG.L vs. R2SC.LXRSG.L vs. WLDS.LXRSG.L vs. SPX4.LXRSG.L vs. SMGB.LXRSG.L vs. XNAQ.LXRSG.L vs. AVUVXRSG.L vs. IITU.L

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. XRSG.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
XRSG.L
XRSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
XRSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XRSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XRSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
XRSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
XRSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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. XRSG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C (XRSG.L). 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.

ICLNXRSG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.18
1.85

-0.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.67
2.69

-1.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.31

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.50

3.10

-1.60

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.17

10.10

-4.92

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the XRSG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and XRSG.L, 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. XRSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than XRSG.L's maximum drawdown of -49.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and XRSG.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ICLNXRSG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-87.15%

-49.73%

-37.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.42%

-10.66%

-12.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-42.27%

-28.72%

-13.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.16%

-32.27%

-24.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-66.75%

-41.99%

-24.76%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-50.47%

-2.69%

-47.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-66.45%

-18.26%

-48.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.78%

3.27%

+3.51%

Volatility

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a higher volatility of 11.54% compared to Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C (XRSG.L) at 4.26%. This indicates that ICLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XRSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ICLNXRSG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.54%

4.26%

+7.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

24.70%

13.17%

+11.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

29.86%

17.90%

+11.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.93%

24.99%

+2.94%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.43%

23.51%

+3.92%

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than XRSG.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. XRSG.L - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, while XRSG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		1.02%1.63%1.85%1.59%0.89%1.18%0.34%1.36%2.77%2.49%3.88%2.36%
XRSG.L
Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

ICLN and XRSG.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XRSG.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XRSG.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ICLN.

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while XRSG.L is Small Cap Blend Equities. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while XRSG.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.30% for XRSG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ICLN and XRSG.L

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