PBW vs. IBAT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - PBW tracks the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX) while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, PBW returned 46.40% vs 63.73% for IBAT. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PBW charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

PBW vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) 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, PBW achieves a 5.86% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 32.65% return.

PBW

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: -12.22%
• 6M: -4.18%
• YTD: 5.86%
• 1Y: 46.40%
• 3Y*: -7.64%
• 5Y*: -15.46%
• 10Y*: 7.09%
• ALL TIME*: -2.58%

IBAT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: 17.70%
• YTD: 32.65%
• 1Y: 63.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.39%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	$1.10M	$1.47M	$2.33M
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	$37.14M	$32.16M	$36.05M

PBW vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	5.86%	53.96%	-7.83%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	32.65%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between PBW and IBAT is 0.80, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.77

The correlation between PBW and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBW	IBAT
Industrials	25.7%	44.1%
Technology	23.6%	21.1%
Basic Materials	16.3%	32.2%
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	2.2%
Utilities	9.1%	0.3%
Energy	3.9%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	-
Financial Services	1.4%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PBW vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 38
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 38
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 36

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 76
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PBW vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) 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.

	PBW	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	1.98	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	2.45	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.33	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.20	2.42	-1.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.64	8.73	-5.09

PBW vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW 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

PBW vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBW	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.02%	-28.26%	-60.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.09%	-25.85%	-10.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.32%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-84.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-73.32%	-20.73%	-52.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.94%	-8.03%	-54.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.82%	7.15%	+4.67%

Volatility

PBW vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 14.90% compared to iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) at 12.10%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBW	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.90%	12.10%	+2.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.63%	26.99%	+6.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.14%	31.59%	+12.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.61%	26.08%	+17.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	39.25%	26.08%	+13.17%

PBW vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBW vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than IBAT's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.80%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	1.47%	0.79%	2.84%	3.68%	4.21%	1.71%	0.44%	1.45%	2.04%	1.28%	2.68%	1.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBW and IBAT in my portfolio?

PBW and IBAT have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBW or IBAT?

PBW has higher volatility (14.90%) compared to IBAT (12.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, PBW or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 63.73% vs 46.40% for PBW. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBAT has been the lower-risk option at 12.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBW or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 63.73% return vs 46.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBW or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

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

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.80% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between PBW and IBAT?

PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 0.98), 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.