IXJ vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IXJ (iShares Global Healthcare ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IXJ is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index, while IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IXJ returned 11.25% vs 105.19% for IBAT. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IXJ charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

IXJ vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) 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, IXJ achieves a -1.18% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 51.63% return.

IXJ

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 3.58%
• YTD: -1.18%
• 6M: -0.09%
• 1Y: 11.25%
• 3Y*: 5.65%
• 5Y*: 4.37%
• 10Y*: 8.43%

IBAT

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: -4.06%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 46.54%
• 1Y: 105.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IXJ vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	-1.18%	14.99%	-5.21%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	51.63%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between IXJ and IBAT is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.33

IXJ vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IXJ	IBAT
Healthcare	98.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	30.8%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.8%
Energy	-	3.0%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	40.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	23.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

IXJ vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

IXJ

IXJ Risk / Return Rank: 22
IXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
IXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
IXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 21
IXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
IXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 21

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 94
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

IXJ vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) 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.

	IXJ	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	3.63	-2.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.14	3.98	-2.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.54	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.95	7.45	-6.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.29	20.84	-18.55

IXJ vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IXJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 3.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IXJ 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

IXJ vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IXJ drawdown since its inception was -40.60%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXJ and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IXJ	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.60%	-28.26%	-12.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.78%	-13.71%	+2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.37%	-8.98%	+3.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.92%	-7.74%	+0.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.52%	4.90%	-0.38%

Volatility

IXJ vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Healthcare ETF (IXJ) is 4.81%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 13.41%. This indicates that IXJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IXJ	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	13.41%	-8.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.46%	22.68%	-12.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.92%	28.18%	-13.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.26%	24.58%	-10.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.70%	24.58%	-8.88%

IXJ vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IXJ has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

IXJ vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

IXJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, more than IBAT's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.76%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IXJ iShares Global Healthcare ETF	1.41%	1.40%	1.50%	1.38%	1.17%	1.12%	1.27%	1.42%	2.11%	1.46%	1.73%	2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IXJ and IBAT in my portfolio?

IXJ and IBAT have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IXJ or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (13.41%) compared to IXJ (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IXJ dropped -40.60% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, IXJ or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 105.19% vs 11.25% for IXJ. On fees, IXJ is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IXJ has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IXJ or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 105.19% return vs 11.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IXJ or IBAT?

IXJ is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

IXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.76% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between IXJ and IBAT?

IXJ is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while IBAT is Alternative Energy Equities. IXJ tracks S&P Global Healthcare Sector Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IXJ and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 vs 0.69), 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.