ITB vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

ITB (iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ITB is a Building & Construction fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ITB returned 13.61%/yr vs 11.27%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ITB charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

ITB vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ITB achieves a -3.71% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 27.81% return. Over the past 10 years, ITB has outperformed ICLN with an annualized return of 13.61%, while ICLN has yielded a comparatively lower 11.27% annualized return.

ITB

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: -0.48%
• YTD: -3.71%
• 6M: -7.66%
• 1Y: 3.31%
• 3Y*: 6.44%
• 5Y*: 6.84%
• 10Y*: 13.61%

ICLN

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: -0.76%
• YTD: 27.81%
• 6M: 26.73%
• 1Y: 65.16%
• 3Y*: 5.80%
• 5Y*: 0.12%
• 10Y*: 11.27%

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

ITB vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF	-3.71%	-5.26%	2.06%	68.91%	-26.26%	49.25%	26.42%	48.70%	-30.92%	59.65%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	27.81%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-9.03%	21.47%

Correlation

The correlation between ITB and ICLN is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008	0.48

The correlation between ITB and ICLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.48 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ITB vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ITB	ICLN
Consumer Cyclical	71.8%	0.1%
Industrials	19.1%	27.8%
Basic Materials	8.6%	1.1%
Real Estate	0.5%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	26.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	11.1%
Utilities	-	32.8%

Return for Risk

ITB vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

ITB

ITB Risk / Return Rank: 11
ITB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
ITB Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
ITB Omega Ratio Rank: 12
ITB Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
ITB Martin Ratio Rank: 10

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 80
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 70
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

ITB vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) 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.

	ITB	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.11	2.38	-2.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.42	2.93	-2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.37	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.13	5.66	-5.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.25	16.11	-15.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ITB vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ITB Sharpe Ratio is 0.11, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ITB 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ITB	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11	2.38	-2.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24	0.00	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.41	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	-0.09	+0.20

Drawdowns

ITB vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ITB drawdown since its inception was -86.53%, roughly equal to the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ITB and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	ITB	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.53%	-87.15%	+0.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.04%	-11.58%	-14.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.35%	-43.18%	+9.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.55%	-57.16%	+16.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.10%	-66.75%	+14.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.00%	-42.82%	+15.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.10%	-66.59%	+29.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.28%	4.06%	+9.22%

Volatility

ITB vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) is 7.16%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 12.28%. This indicates that ITB 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.

Volatility by Period

	ITB	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.16%	12.28%	-5.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.24%	21.81%	-1.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.41%	27.62%	+1.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.19%	27.43%	+1.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.00%	27.31%	+2.69%

ITB vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

ITB has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

ITB vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

ITB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, less than ICLN's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.28%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF	1.23%	1.67%	0.46%	0.48%	0.86%	0.37%	0.46%	0.50%	0.63%	0.28%	0.43%	0.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ITB and ICLN in my portfolio?

ITB and ICLN have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ITB or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to ITB (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ITB dropped -86.53% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, ITB or ICLN?

On 10-year performance, ITB leads with 13.61% vs 11.27% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ITB has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ITB or ICLN?

Over the 10-year period, ITB has performed better with a 13.61% return vs 11.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ITB or ICLN?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for ITB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ITB or ICLN?

ICLN has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 1.23% for ITB.

What is the main difference between ITB and ICLN?

ITB is categorized as Building & Construction, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for ITB and 0.39% for ICLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 0.11), 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.