ION vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ION returned 111.43% vs 131.73% for IBAT. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ION charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

ION vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ION achieves a 8.52% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 67.33% return.

ION

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: -6.82%
• YTD: 8.52%
• 6M: 8.91%
• 1Y: 111.43%
• 3Y*: 17.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBAT

• 1D: 2.64%
• 1M: 6.53%
• YTD: 67.33%
• 6M: 65.39%
• 1Y: 131.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ION vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	8.52%	108.37%	-15.67%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	67.33%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between ION and IBAT is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.58

The correlation between ION and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

ION vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ION	IBAT
Basic Materials	14.1%	30.6%
Financial Services	13.3%	-
Energy	2.5%	1.9%
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Healthcare	1.9%	-
Industrials	1.7%	40.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Technology	-	25.5%
Utilities	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

ION vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 80
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 71
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 78

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 96
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 95
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

ION vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT). 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.

	ION	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	4.70	-1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	4.82	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.67	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	9.67	-4.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.58	26.93	-12.35

ION vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ION Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 4.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ION and IBAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ION vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ION drawdown since its inception was -52.08%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ION and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ION	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.08%	-28.26%	-23.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.30%	-13.71%	-9.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.15%	0.00%	-18.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.60%	-7.70%	-15.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.67%	4.91%	+2.76%

Volatility

ION vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) have volatilities of 13.14% and 13.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ION	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.14%	13.26%	-0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.78%	22.58%	+9.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.41%	28.27%	+11.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.50%	24.69%	+6.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.50%	24.69%	+6.81%

ION vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ION has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

ION vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

ION's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than IBAT's 0.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.64%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.47%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ION and IBAT in my portfolio?

ION and IBAT have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ION or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (13.26%) compared to ION (13.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ION dropped -52.08% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, ION or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 131.73% vs 111.43% for ION. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, ION has been the lower-risk option at 13.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ION or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 131.73% return vs 111.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ION or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ION or IBAT?

ION has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.64% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between ION and IBAT?

ION is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while IBAT is Alternative Energy Equities. ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for ION and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.70 vs 2.85), 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.