QAT vs. IXC
QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) and IXC (iShares Global Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QAT is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while IXC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global 1200 Energy Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QAT returned 3.20%/yr vs 9.23%/yr for IXC. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QAT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IXC.
Performance
QAT vs. IXC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QAT achieves a -3.28% return, which is significantly lower than IXC's 27.41% return. Over the past 10 years, QAT has underperformed IXC with an annualized return of 3.20%, while IXC has yielded a comparatively higher 9.23% annualized return.
QAT
- 1D
- -1.07%
- 1M
- -4.88%
- 6M
- -6.30%
- YTD
- -3.28%
- 1Y
- -1.91%
- 3Y*
- 3.89%
- 5Y*
- 2.76%
- 10Y*
- 3.20%
IXC
- 1D
- 0.46%
- 1M
- 2.57%
- 6M
- 21.42%
- YTD
- 27.41%
- 1Y
- 36.71%
- 3Y*
- 16.54%
- 5Y*
- 21.32%
- 10Y*
- 9.23%
QAT vs. IXC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF | -3.28% | 8.81% | 5.20% | 2.72% | -7.23% | 14.42% | 6.94% | -0.44% | 20.03% | -11.66% |
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF | 27.41% | 13.98% | 1.95% | 3.92% | 48.51% | 40.88% | -31.00% | 12.67% | -14.85% | 5.54% |
Correlation
The correlation between QAT and IXC is -0.21, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.21 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2014 | 0.23 |
The correlation between QAT and IXC shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
QAT vs. IXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QAT
IXC
Financial Services
-
Basic Materials
-
Industrials
-
Energy
Communication Services
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
Technology
-
Healthcare
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
QAT
IXC
-
Basic Materials
QAT
IXC
-
Industrials
QAT
IXC
-
Energy
QAT
IXC
Communication Services
QAT
IXC
-
Real Estate
QAT
IXC
-
Utilities
QAT
IXC
Technology
QAT
IXC
-
Healthcare
QAT
IXC
-
Consumer Cyclical
QAT
IXC
-
Consumer Defensive
QAT
IXC
-
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
QAT vs. IXC — Risk / Return Rank
QAT
IXC
QAT vs. IXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC). 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.
| QAT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.32 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.18 | 2.40 | -2.58 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.31 | 7.55 | -7.86 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QAT vs. IXC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, smaller than the maximum IXC drawdown of -67.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and IXC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QAT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.21% | -67.88% | +22.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.60% | -15.36% | +4.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.41% | -19.06% | +1.65% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.17% | -24.93% | -8.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.04% | -64.16% | +30.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.31% | -8.30% | -7.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.11% | -17.45% | -1.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.15% | 4.88% | +1.27% |
Volatility
QAT vs. IXC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 3.17%, while iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC) has a volatility of 6.19%. This indicates that QAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IXC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QAT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.17% | 6.19% | -3.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.12% | 15.89% | -4.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.41% | 19.32% | -5.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.09% | 23.44% | -8.35% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.51% | 26.81% | -9.30% |
QAT vs. IXC - Expense Ratio Comparison
QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IXC's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
QAT vs. IXC - Dividend Comparison
QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.84%, more than IXC's 2.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF | 2.98% | 3.68% | 4.56% | 3.45% | 4.76% | 3.98% | 4.86% | 7.00% | 3.51% | 3.05% | 2.86% | 3.77% |
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF | 4.84% | 3.51% | 5.90% | 3.92% | 4.78% | 2.33% | 2.63% | 3.57% | 4.63% | 4.10% | 3.51% | 4.49% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QAT and IXC have a correlation of -0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IXC has higher volatility (6.19%) compared to QAT (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs IXC's -67.88%.
On 10-year performance, IXC leads with 9.23% vs 3.20% for QAT. On fees, IXC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IXC has performed better with a 9.23% return vs 3.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IXC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.
QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.84%, compared with 2.98% for IXC.
QAT is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while IXC is Energy Equities. QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while IXC tracks S&P Global 1200 Energy Capped Index. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.40% for IXC.
IXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs -0.14), 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 QAT and IXC
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