TAN vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TAN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, TAN returned 127.12% vs 4.48% for IBIC. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TAN charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

TAN vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TAN achieves a 47.13% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.35% return.

TAN

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: 21.93%
• YTD: 47.13%
• 6M: 51.73%
• 1Y: 127.12%
• 3Y*: 0.29%
• 5Y*: -0.77%
• 10Y*: 13.81%

IBIC

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.37%
• YTD: 2.35%
• 6M: 2.51%
• 1Y: 4.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TAN vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TAN Invesco Solar ETF	47.13%	48.31%	-37.61%	-4.51%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.35%	4.96%	5.25%	2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between TAN and IBIC is -0.18, 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	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.06

The correlation between TAN and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TAN vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

TAN

TAN Risk / Return Rank: 89
TAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
TAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
TAN Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
TAN Martin Ratio Rank: 91

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

TAN vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.

	TAN	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.44	4.97	-1.53
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	8.97	-5.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	2.21	-0.73
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.06	17.05	-7.99
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.01	66.57	-44.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TAN vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TAN Sharpe Ratio is 3.44, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 4.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TAN and IBIC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	TAN	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44	4.97	-1.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.02	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.37	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.12	3.49	-3.61

Drawdowns

TAN vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TAN drawdown since its inception was -95.29%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TAN and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	TAN	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.29%	-0.90%	-94.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.62%	-0.26%	-13.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-64.40%	—	—
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	-66.81%	-0.15%	-66.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-78.51%	-0.10%	-78.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.61%	0.07%	+5.54%

Volatility

TAN vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) has a higher volatility of 11.81% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.34%. This indicates that TAN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TAN	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.81%	0.34%	+11.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.30%	0.67%	+24.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.21%	0.90%	+36.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.74%	1.58%	+38.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.98%	1.58%	+36.40%

TAN vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

TAN has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

TAN vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IBIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.59%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.59%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%	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 IBIC in my portfolio?

TAN and IBIC have a correlation of -0.18, 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 IBIC?

TAN has higher volatility (11.81%) compared to IBIC (0.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TAN dropped -95.29% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, TAN or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, TAN leads with 127.12% vs 4.48% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TAN or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, TAN has performed better with a 127.12% return vs 4.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TAN or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TAN.

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

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.59%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.

What is the main difference between TAN and IBIC?

TAN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for TAN and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.97 vs 3.44), 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.