PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IFRA vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IFRA (iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index (TR), while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IFRA returned 14.59%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ICLN. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IFRA charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

IFRA vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFRA achieves a 20.29% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 32.00% return.

IFRA

1D
1.32%
1M
3.37%
YTD
20.29%
6M
19.25%
1Y
34.14%
3Y*
20.96%
5Y*
14.59%
10Y*
—

ICLN

1D
2.51%
1M
-3.22%
YTD
32.00%
6M
30.26%
1Y
73.06%
3Y*
8.37%
5Y*
0.24%
10Y*
11.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IFRA vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IFRA
iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF		20.29%15.90%17.02%13.42%-3.32%29.81%7.37%27.00%-7.97%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		32.00%47.05%-25.72%-20.41%-5.43%-24.18%141.82%44.36%-12.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IFRA and ICLN is 0.52, 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

0.52

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

0.56

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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2018

0.55

The correlation between IFRA and ICLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

IFRA vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IFRA
ICLN

Industrials

39.4%
28.7%

Utilities

37.7%
34.6%

Basic Materials

14.7%
1.3%

Energy

7.9%
23.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.0%
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

0.0%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

10.5%

Industrials

IFRA
39.4%
ICLN
28.7%

Utilities

IFRA
37.7%
ICLN
34.6%

Basic Materials

IFRA
14.7%
ICLN
1.3%

Energy

IFRA
7.9%
ICLN
23.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IFRA
0.0%
ICLN
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

IFRA
0.0%
ICLN

-

Communication Services

IFRA

-

ICLN

-

Financial Services

IFRA

-

ICLN

-

Healthcare

IFRA

-

ICLN

-

Real Estate

IFRA

-

ICLN

-

Technology

IFRA

-

ICLN
10.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with IFRA:
IFRA vs. PAVEIFRA vs. IGFIFRA vs. NFRAIFRA vs. GIIIFRA vs. VOOIFRA vs. FNDAIFRA vs. IYH
Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT

Return for Risk

IFRA vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IFRA
IFRA Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
IFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
IFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
IFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
IFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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.

IFRA vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). 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.

IFRAICLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.26
2.61

-0.35

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.25
3.19

+0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.40

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.08

4.48

-0.40

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.93

15.79

-0.86

IFRA vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFRA Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFRA and ICLN, 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

IFRA vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFRA drawdown since its inception was -41.06%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFRA and ICLN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IFRAICLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.06%

-87.15%

+46.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.40%

-16.38%

+7.98%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.93%

-43.18%

+23.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.93%

-57.16%

+37.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-66.75%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-40.94%

+40.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.12%

-66.53%

+61.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.29%

4.64%

-2.35%

Volatility

IFRA vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) is 5.08%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 13.10%. This indicates that IFRA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ICLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IFRAICLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.08%

13.10%

-8.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.73%

22.66%

-10.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.21%

28.19%

-12.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.91%

27.62%

-9.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.36%

27.34%

-5.98%

IFRA vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFRA has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFRA vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

IFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, more than ICLN's 0.85% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		0.85%1.63%1.85%1.59%0.89%1.18%0.34%1.36%2.77%2.49%3.88%2.36%
IFRA
iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF		1.55%1.84%1.75%1.98%1.98%1.63%2.08%1.68%2.50%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IFRA and ICLN have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ICLN has higher volatility (13.10%) compared to IFRA (5.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IFRA dropped -41.06% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

On 5-year performance, IFRA leads with 14.59% vs 0.24% for ICLN. On fees, IFRA is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, IFRA has been the lower-risk option at 5.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IFRA has performed better with a 14.59% return vs 0.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

IFRA has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.85% for ICLN.

IFRA is categorized as Industrials Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. IFRA tracks NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index (TR), while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IFRA and 0.39% for ICLN.

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 2.26), 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 IFRA and ICLN

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