PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
SPGP.L vs. ICLN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

SPGP.L vs. ICLN

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

SPGP.L (iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF) and ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SPGP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, 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, SPGP.L returned 13.80%/yr vs 12.25%/yr for ICLN. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SPGP.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ICLN.

Performance

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.L) and iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

SPGP.L is traded in GBp, while ICLN is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ICLN values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SPGP.L achieves a -5.80% return, which is significantly lower than ICLN's 27.98% return. Over the past 10 years, SPGP.L has outperformed ICLN with an annualized return of 13.80%, while ICLN has yielded a comparatively lower 12.25% annualized return.

SPGP.L

1D
5.49%
1M
-16.05%
YTD
-5.80%
6M
-4.88%
1Y
52.23%
3Y*
36.39%
5Y*
18.46%
10Y*
13.80%

ICLN

1D
0.96%
1M
-3.55%
YTD
27.98%
6M
26.69%
1Y
63.36%
3Y*
3.13%
5Y*
0.82%
10Y*
12.25%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SPGP.L
iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF		-5.80%137.41%12.81%3.72%-0.45%-9.15%19.43%41.00%-4.37%-2.80%
ICLN
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF		27.98%36.57%-24.42%-24.38%5.82%-23.46%134.72%38.87%-3.64%10.96%

Correlation

The correlation between SPGP.L 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

0.24

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.19

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.17

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2011

0.16

The correlation between SPGP.L and ICLN shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (all time) to 0.31 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SPGP.L
ICLN

Basic Materials

99.8%
1.1%

Industrials

0.2%
27.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

0.1%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

26.4%

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

11.1%

Utilities

-

32.8%

Basic Materials

SPGP.L
99.8%
ICLN
1.1%

Industrials

SPGP.L
0.2%
ICLN
27.8%

Communication Services

SPGP.L

-

ICLN

-

Consumer Cyclical

SPGP.L

-

ICLN
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

SPGP.L

-

ICLN

-

Energy

SPGP.L

-

ICLN
26.4%

Financial Services

SPGP.L

-

ICLN

-

Healthcare

SPGP.L

-

ICLN

-

Real Estate

SPGP.L

-

ICLN

-

Technology

SPGP.L

-

ICLN
11.1%

Utilities

SPGP.L

-

ICLN
32.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Often compared with SPGP.L:
SPGP.L vs. GDXSPGP.L vs. IAUSPGP.L vs. EGLN.LSPGP.L vs. VOOSPGP.L vs. SCHGSPGP.L vs. AUCP.LSPGP.L vs. GDGB.L
Often compared with ICLN:
ICLN vs. TANICLN vs. QCLNICLN vs. GRIDICLN vs. INRG.LICLN vs. PBWICLN vs. CNRGICLN vs. LIT

Return for Risk

SPGP.L vs. ICLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SPGP.L
SPGP.L Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
SPGP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
ICLN
ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.L) 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.

SPGP.LICLNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.26
2.38

-1.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.73
2.99

-1.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.38

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.54

4.03

-2.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.40

13.19

-8.79

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SPGP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the ICLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPGP.L 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPGP.L drawdown since its inception was -86.56%, roughly equal to the maximum ICLN drawdown of -84.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPGP.L and ICLN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SPGP.LICLNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-86.56%

-84.40%

-2.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-33.69%

-15.79%

-17.90%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.69%

-42.62%

+8.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.81%

-57.04%

+22.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.71%

-64.68%

+20.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-29.46%

-32.10%

+2.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-60.25%

-57.59%

-2.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

11.81%

4.82%

+6.99%

Volatility

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.L) has a higher volatility of 13.22% compared to iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) at 12.56%. This indicates that SPGP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

SPGP.LICLNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.22%

12.56%

+0.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

33.40%

21.31%

+12.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

41.37%

26.75%

+14.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

34.91%

25.64%

+9.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.95%

26.28%

+7.67%

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

SPGP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ICLN's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

SPGP.L vs. ICLN - Dividend Comparison

SPGP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SPGP.L
iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

SPGP.L 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.

On fees, ICLN is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ICLN is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for SPGP.L.

SPGP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while ICLN is Alternative Energy Equities. SPGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for SPGP.L and 0.39% for ICLN.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SPGP.L 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