MJ vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MJ (ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MJ is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Prime Alternative Harvest Index, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MJ returned -36.20%/yr vs -0.79%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MJ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

MJ vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) 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, MJ achieves a -20.17% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 26.14% return.

MJ

• 1D: -2.02%
• 1M: -4.80%
• YTD: -20.17%
• 6M: -24.21%
• 1Y: 45.98%
• 3Y*: -9.19%
• 5Y*: -36.20%
• 10Y*: —

ICLN

• 1D: -4.44%
• 1M: -7.52%
• YTD: 26.14%
• 6M: 25.31%
• 1Y: 64.46%
• 3Y*: 6.74%
• 5Y*: -0.79%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

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

MJ vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
MJ ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF	-20.17%	13.07%	-23.97%	-24.18%	-61.55%	-22.79%	-16.18%	-31.36%	-25.99%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	26.14%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	44.36%	-6.83%

Correlation

The correlation between MJ 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	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2018	0.44

The correlation between MJ and ICLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (1 year) to 0.44 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MJ vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MJ	ICLN
Healthcare	76.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	18.9%	-
Real Estate	2.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.0%	0.1%
Technology	0.6%	10.5%
Financial Services	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	23.7%
Industrials	-	28.7%
Utilities	-	34.6%

Return for Risk

MJ vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

MJ

MJ Risk / Return Rank: 23
MJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
MJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
MJ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
MJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
MJ Martin Ratio Rank: 16

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 70
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

MJ vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) 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.

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.

	MJ	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.53	2.27	-1.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	2.84	-1.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.36	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.95	3.96	-3.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.63	13.73	-12.10

MJ vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.53, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MJ 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.

Drawdowns

MJ vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MJ drawdown since its inception was -96.55%, which is greater than ICLN's maximum drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MJ and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	MJ	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.55%	-87.15%	-9.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.66%	-16.38%	-32.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-69.73%	-43.18%	-26.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.93%	-57.16%	-35.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-66.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-94.85%	-43.56%	-51.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.34%	-66.53%	-2.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	28.30%	4.71%	+23.59%

Volatility

MJ vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) is 12.22%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 13.47%. This indicates that MJ 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

	MJ	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.22%	13.47%	-1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.25%	23.14%	+17.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	86.93%	28.52%	+58.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.96%	27.69%	+32.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	55.65%	27.33%	+28.32%

MJ vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

MJ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MJ vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

MJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.49%, more than ICLN's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	0.89%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%
MJ ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF	2.49%	1.98%	13.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MJ and ICLN in my portfolio?

MJ 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.

Which is riskier, MJ or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to MJ (12.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MJ dropped -96.55% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, MJ or ICLN?

On 5-year performance, ICLN leads with -0.79% vs -36.20% for MJ. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MJ has been the lower-risk option at 12.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MJ or ICLN?

Over the 5-year period, ICLN has performed better with a -0.79% return vs -36.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MJ or ICLN?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for MJ.

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

MJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.49%, compared with 0.89% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between MJ and ICLN?

MJ is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. MJ tracks Prime Alternative Harvest Index, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: ETFMG and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for MJ and 0.39% for ICLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 0.53), 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.