PSIL vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

PSIL (AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PSIL is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by AdvisorShares, while ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index. PSIL is actively managed, while ICLN is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PSIL returned 6.03%/yr vs 5.46%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PSIL charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

PSIL vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) 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, PSIL achieves a 12.35% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 28.34% return.

PSIL

• 1D: -4.32%
• 1M: -3.41%
• YTD: 12.35%
• 6M: 10.46%
• 1Y: 52.66%
• 3Y*: 6.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ICLN

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -3.23%
• YTD: 28.34%
• 6M: 28.17%
• 1Y: 61.48%
• 3Y*: 5.46%
• 5Y*: -0.17%
• 10Y*: 11.52%

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

PSIL vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	12.35%	74.55%	-19.50%	-25.12%	-67.24%	-42.72%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	28.34%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-5.62%

Correlation

The correlation between PSIL and ICLN is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2021	0.35

PSIL vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PSIL	ICLN
Healthcare	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	24.9%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	26.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	10.8%
Utilities	-	35.4%

Return for Risk

PSIL vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

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

PSIL

PSIL Risk / Return Rank: 39
PSIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
PSIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
PSIL Omega Ratio Rank: 34
PSIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
PSIL Martin Ratio Rank: 36

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 73
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

PSIL vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) 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.

	PSIL	ICLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	2.19	-0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	2.75	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.35	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.60	3.77	-1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.38	13.82	-8.43

PSIL vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PSIL Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PSIL 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

PSIL vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PSIL drawdown since its inception was -92.72%, which is greater than ICLN's maximum drawdown of -87.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PSIL and ICLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	PSIL	ICLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.72%	-87.15%	-5.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.38%	-16.38%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.62%	-43.18%	-21.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-57.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-66.75%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-78.15%	-42.58%	-35.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-76.71%	-66.55%	-10.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.81%	4.46%	+5.35%

Volatility

PSIL vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) is 12.21%, while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a volatility of 12.94%. This indicates that PSIL 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

	PSIL	ICLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.21%	12.94%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.74%	22.57%	+6.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.53%	28.28%	+14.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	63.03%	27.55%	+35.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	63.03%	27.33%	+35.70%

PSIL vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

PSIL has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

PSIL vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

PSIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.90%, more than ICLN's 1.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.54%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	8.90%	10.95%	1.49%	0.24%	2.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PSIL and ICLN in my portfolio?

PSIL and ICLN have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PSIL or ICLN?

ICLN has higher volatility (12.94%) compared to PSIL (12.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PSIL dropped -92.72% vs ICLN's -87.15%.

Which ETF is better, PSIL or ICLN?

On 3-year performance, PSIL leads with 6.03% vs 5.46% for ICLN. On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PSIL has been the lower-risk option at 12.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PSIL or ICLN?

Over the 3-year period, PSIL has performed better with a 6.03% return vs 5.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PSIL or ICLN?

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PSIL.

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

PSIL has the higher dividend yield at 8.90%, compared with 1.54% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between PSIL and ICLN?

PSIL is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PSIL and 0.39% for ICLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.25), 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.