LQD vs. ICLN
LQD (iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQD is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade 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, LQD returned 2.41%/yr vs 11.27%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.
Performance
LQD vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LQD achieves a -0.06% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 27.81% return. Over the past 10 years, LQD has underperformed ICLN with an annualized return of 2.41%, while ICLN has yielded a comparatively higher 11.27% annualized return.
LQD
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- YTD
- -0.06%
- 6M
- -0.06%
- 1Y
- 5.73%
- 3Y*
- 4.95%
- 5Y*
- -0.28%
- 10Y*
- 2.41%
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%
LQD vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | -0.06% | 7.90% | 0.86% | 9.40% | -17.92% | -1.84% | 10.97% | 17.37% | -3.79% | 7.06% |
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 LQD and ICLN is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008 | 0.14 |
The correlation between LQD and ICLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (all time) to 0.36 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
LQD vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank
LQD
ICLN
LQD vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) 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.
| LQD | ICLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.37 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.72 | 5.66 | -3.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.88 | 16.11 | -11.22 |
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
| LQD | ICLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.08 | 2.38 | -1.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 | 0.00 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 | 0.41 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.54 | -0.09 | +0.63 |
Drawdowns
LQD vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LQD drawdown since its inception was -24.95%, smaller than the maximum ICLN drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQD and ICLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LQD | ICLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.95% | -87.15% | +62.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.34% | -11.58% | +8.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -8.43% | -43.18% | +34.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.95% | -57.16% | +32.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.95% | -66.75% | +41.80% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.21% | -42.82% | +38.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.99% | -66.59% | +62.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.18% | 4.06% | -2.88% |
Volatility
LQD vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) is 1.62%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 12.28%. This indicates that LQD 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LQD | ICLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.62% | 12.28% | -10.66% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.94% | 21.81% | -17.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.32% | 27.62% | -22.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.65% | 27.43% | -18.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.68% | 27.31% | -18.63% |
LQD vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
LQD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
LQD vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison
LQD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.59%, more 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% |
LQD iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 4.59% | 4.48% | 4.45% | 3.99% | 3.30% | 2.30% | 2.66% | 3.29% | 3.67% | 3.10% | 3.34% | 3.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LQD and ICLN have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ICLN has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to LQD (1.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQD dropped -24.95% vs ICLN's -87.15%.
On 10-year performance, ICLN leads with 11.27% vs 2.41% for LQD. On fees, LQD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LQD has been the lower-risk option at 1.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ICLN has performed better with a 11.27% return vs 2.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LQD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ICLN.
LQD has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 1.28% for ICLN.
LQD is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. LQD tracks iBoxx $ Liquid Investment Grade Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LQD and 0.39% for ICLN.
ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 1.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for LQD and ICLN
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