TAN vs. IBAT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both Alternative Energy Equities funds - TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index while IBAT tracks the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, TAN returned 35.30% vs 63.73% for IBAT. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

TAN vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) 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, TAN achieves a 0.43% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 32.65% return.

TAN

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -12.41%
• 6M: -8.39%
• YTD: 0.43%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: -9.55%
• 5Y*: -10.35%
• 10Y*: 9.52%
• ALL TIME*: -7.13%

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
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	$66.73M	$50.86M	$87.18M

TAN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.43%	48.31%	-24.51%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	32.65%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and IBAT is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.66

The correlation between TAN and IBAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

TAN vs. IBAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TAN	IBAT
Technology	29.8%	21.1%
Energy	20.4%	1.8%
Utilities	4.8%	0.3%
Financial Services	4.4%	-
Industrials	1.7%	44.1%
Basic Materials	-	32.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TAN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 34
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 34
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

TAN vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) 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.

	TAN	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	1.98	-1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	2.45	-1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.33	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.96	2.42	-1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.14	8.73	-5.59

TAN vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN 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

TAN vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than IBAT's maximum drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-28.26%	-67.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.51%	-25.85%	-9.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.70%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-73.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-77.35%	-20.73%	-56.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.45%	-8.03%	-70.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.87%	7.15%	+3.72%

Volatility

TAN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) have volatilities of 11.99% and 12.10%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.99%	12.10%	-0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.71%	26.99%	+2.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.21%	31.59%	+7.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	40.14%	26.08%	+14.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.27%	26.08%	+12.19%

TAN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%.

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%
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.09%	0.30%	0.69%	1.77%	5.04%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TAN and IBAT in my portfolio?

TAN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TAN or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (12.10%) compared to TAN (11.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 63.73% vs 35.30% for TAN. On fees, IBAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, TAN has been the lower-risk option at 11.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 63.73% return vs 35.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or IBAT?

IBAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

IBAT has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and IBAT?

TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 0.87), 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.