PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and MLPQ.L (Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - INRG.L tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD while MLPQ.L tracks the MSCI World/Energy NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L returned 12.64%/yr vs 7.75%/yr for MLPQ.L. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INRG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MLPQ.L.

Performance

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (MLPQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INRG.L achieves a 39.09% return, which is significantly higher than MLPQ.L's 18.94% return. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L has outperformed MLPQ.L with an annualized return of 12.64%, while MLPQ.L has yielded a comparatively lower 7.75% 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%

MLPQ.L

1D
-0.55%
1M
0.83%
YTD
18.94%
6M
13.87%
1Y
16.79%
3Y*
15.76%
5Y*
18.54%
10Y*
7.75%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
MLPQ.L
Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF		18.94%-4.55%24.63%12.94%47.46%38.65%-33.55%3.85%-9.99%-16.88%

Correlation

The correlation between INRG.L and MLPQ.L is -0.05, 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

-0.05

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

0.13

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

0.20

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

0.33

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2013

0.35

The correlation between INRG.L and MLPQ.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.35 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
INRG.L
MLPQ.L

Utilities

33.7%
3.2%

Industrials

28.3%
0.2%

Energy

24.7%
96.7%

Technology

10.5%

-

Basic Materials

1.3%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

INRG.L
33.7%
MLPQ.L
3.2%

Industrials

INRG.L
28.3%
MLPQ.L
0.2%

Energy

INRG.L
24.7%
MLPQ.L
96.7%

Technology

INRG.L
10.5%
MLPQ.L

-

Basic Materials

INRG.L
1.3%
MLPQ.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

INRG.L
0.1%
MLPQ.L

-

Communication Services

INRG.L

-

MLPQ.L

-

Consumer Defensive

INRG.L

-

MLPQ.L

-

Financial Services

INRG.L

-

MLPQ.L

-

Healthcare

INRG.L

-

MLPQ.L

-

Real Estate

INRG.L

-

MLPQ.L

-

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 UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF

Often compared with INRG.L:
INRG.L vs. ICLNINRG.L vs. TANINRG.L vs. RENW.DEINRG.L vs. V3AB.LINRG.L vs. ACESINRG.L vs. ESIH.LINRG.L vs. RENG.L
Often compared with MLPQ.L:
MLPQ.L vs. MLPZXMLPQ.L vs. AMLPMLPQ.L vs. NCLP.LMLPQ.L vs. IEDL.LMLPQ.L vs. ^SIXUMLPQ.L vs. FSENXMLPQ.L vs. GCLE.L

Return for Risk

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank
MLPQ.L
MLPQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
MLPQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MLPQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
MLPQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
MLPQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
MLPQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
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.

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.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 (MLPQ.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.LMLPQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.42
1.04

+2.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.38
1.44

+2.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.18

+0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.64

1.84

+4.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.87

4.31

+15.56

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.42, which is higher than the MLPQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INRG.L and MLPQ.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

INRG.LMLPQ.LDifference

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

0.94

-0.83

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.50

0.28

+0.22

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.02

0.19

-0.17

Drawdowns

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INRG.L drawdown since its inception was -85.09%, which is greater than MLPQ.L's maximum drawdown of -75.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INRG.L and MLPQ.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INRG.LMLPQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-85.09%

-75.62%

-9.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.38%

-9.07%

-3.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-44.29%

-19.04%

-25.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.38%

-19.04%

-38.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-65.47%

-74.07%

+8.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.35%

-3.53%

-23.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-56.54%

-20.03%

-36.51%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.15%

3.89%

+0.26%

Volatility

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.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 (MLPQ.L) at 6.19%. This indicates that INRG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MLPQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

INRG.LMLPQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.58%

6.19%

+3.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.61%

12.70%

+4.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.04%

16.11%

+7.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.80%

19.75%

+5.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.33%

27.79%

-2.46%

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

INRG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPQ.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

INRG.L vs. MLPQ.L - Dividend Comparison

INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, while MLPQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
MLPQ.L
Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF		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

INRG.L and MLPQ.L have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MLPQ.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MLPQ.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 MLPQ.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 MLPQ.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INRG.L and MLPQ.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