INRG.L vs. MLPP.L
INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and MLPP.L (Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist)) are both Energy Equities funds - INRG.L tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD while MLPP.L tracks the MSCI World/Energy NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L returned 12.64%/yr vs 3.95%/yr for MLPP.L. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INRG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MLPP.L.
Performance
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, INRG.L achieves a 39.09% return, which is significantly higher than MLPP.L's 19.02% return. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L has outperformed MLPP.L with an annualized return of 12.64%, while MLPP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 3.95% annualized return.
INRG.L
- 1D
- -2.01%
- 1M
- 8.39%
- YTD
- 39.09%
- 6M
- 35.51%
- 1Y
- 82.63%
- 3Y*
- 5.64%
- 5Y*
- 2.72%
- 10Y*
- 12.64%
MLPP.L
- 1D
- -0.55%
- 1M
- 0.89%
- YTD
- 19.02%
- 6M
- 13.93%
- 1Y
- 16.92%
- 3Y*
- 15.77%
- 5Y*
- 18.55%
- 10Y*
- 3.95%
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INRG.L iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 39.09% | 34.75% | -24.39% | -23.83% | 5.52% | -23.71% | 135.23% | 39.22% | -2.66% | 10.46% |
MLPP.L Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) | 19.02% | -4.63% | 24.36% | 13.33% | 47.48% | 38.50% | -38.75% | -2.21% | -17.19% | -22.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between INRG.L and MLPP.L is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2013 | 0.28 |
The correlation between INRG.L and MLPP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.28 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
INRG.L
MLPP.L
Utilities
Industrials
Energy
Technology
-
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
INRG.L
MLPP.L
Industrials
INRG.L
MLPP.L
Energy
INRG.L
MLPP.L
Technology
INRG.L
MLPP.L
-
Basic Materials
INRG.L
MLPP.L
-
Consumer Cyclical
INRG.L
MLPP.L
-
Communication Services
INRG.L
-
MLPP.L
-
Consumer Defensive
INRG.L
-
MLPP.L
-
Financial Services
INRG.L
-
MLPP.L
-
Healthcare
INRG.L
-
MLPP.L
-
Real Estate
INRG.L
-
MLPP.L
-
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
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L — Risk / Return Rank
INRG.L
MLPP.L
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.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.
| INRG.L | MLPP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.93 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | 1.18 | +0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.64 | 1.87 | +4.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.87 | 4.35 | +15.52 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| INRG.L | MLPP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.42 | 1.04 | +2.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.11 | 1.00 | -0.89 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 | 0.15 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.02 | -0.00 | +0.02 |
Drawdowns
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum INRG.L drawdown since its inception was -85.09%, roughly equal to the maximum MLPP.L drawdown of -84.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INRG.L and MLPP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| INRG.L | MLPP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -85.09% | -84.51% | -0.58% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.38% | -8.99% | -3.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -44.29% | -19.03% | -25.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -57.38% | -19.03% | -38.35% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -65.47% | -80.34% | +14.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -27.35% | -7.30% | -20.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -56.54% | -36.25% | -20.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.15% | 3.88% | +0.27% |
Volatility
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a higher volatility of 9.58% compared to Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L) at 6.47%. This indicates that INRG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MLPP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| INRG.L | MLPP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.58% | 6.47% | +3.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.61% | 12.89% | +4.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.04% | 16.25% | +7.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.80% | 20.82% | +3.98% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.33% | 32.00% | -6.67% |
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
INRG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPP.L's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
INRG.L vs. MLPP.L - Dividend Comparison
INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than MLPP.L's 7.55% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INRG.L iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.09% | 1.77% | 1.58% | 1.00% | 0.62% | 1.01% | 0.61% | 2.05% | 3.68% | 3.69% | 3.65% | 3.90% |
MLPP.L Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) | 7.55% | 8.28% | 7.99% | 8.81% | 7.86% | 8.40% | 6.01% | 0.13% | 0.13% | 0.11% | 0.10% | 0.15% |
Frequently Asked Questions
INRG.L and MLPP.L have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MLPP.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MLPP.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for INRG.L.
INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while MLPP.L tracks MSCI World/Energy NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for INRG.L and 0.50% for MLPP.L.
Find the right allocation for INRG.L and MLPP.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