UTEN vs. IBAT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

UTEN (US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF) and IBAT (iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UTEN is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE BofA Current 10 Year US Treasury Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IBAT is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, UTEN returned 3.90% vs 105.19% for IBAT. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UTEN charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for IBAT.

Performance

UTEN vs. IBAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF (UTEN) 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, UTEN achieves a -0.49% return, which is significantly lower than IBAT's 51.63% return.

UTEN

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: -0.49%
• 6M: -0.13%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 2.29%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBAT

• 1D: 1.07%
• 1M: -4.06%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 46.54%
• 1Y: 105.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

UTEN vs. IBAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
UTEN US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF	-0.49%	7.82%	0.61%
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	51.63%	32.09%	-13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between UTEN and IBAT is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2024	0.13

Return for Risk

UTEN vs. IBAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

UTEN

UTEN Risk / Return Rank: 21
UTEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
UTEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
UTEN Omega Ratio Rank: 19
UTEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
UTEN Martin Ratio Rank: 21

IBAT

IBAT Risk / Return Rank: 94
IBAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Omega Ratio Rank: 92
IBAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
IBAT Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

UTEN vs. IBAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF (UTEN) 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.

	UTEN	IBAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.67	3.63	-2.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.02	3.98	-2.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.54	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	7.45	-6.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.16	20.84	-18.68

UTEN vs. IBAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UTEN Sharpe Ratio is 0.67, which is lower than the IBAT Sharpe Ratio of 3.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UTEN 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

UTEN vs. IBAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UTEN drawdown since its inception was -13.36%, smaller than the maximum IBAT drawdown of -28.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UTEN and IBAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	UTEN	IBAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.36%	-28.26%	+14.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.57%	-13.71%	+9.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.85%	-8.98%	+6.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.81%	-7.74%	+2.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	4.90%	-3.30%

Volatility

UTEN vs. IBAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF (UTEN) is 1.79%, while iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF (IBAT) has a volatility of 13.41%. This indicates that UTEN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IBAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UTEN	IBAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.79%	13.41%	-11.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.74%	22.68%	-18.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.18%	28.18%	-23.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.04%	24.58%	-16.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.04%	24.58%	-16.54%

UTEN vs. IBAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

UTEN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IBAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

UTEN vs. IBAT - Dividend Comparison

UTEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.04%, more than IBAT's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
IBAT iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF	0.76%	1.15%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%
UTEN US Treasury 10 Year Note ETF	4.04%	4.11%	4.13%	3.62%	1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UTEN and IBAT in my portfolio?

UTEN and IBAT have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UTEN or IBAT?

IBAT has higher volatility (13.41%) compared to UTEN (1.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UTEN dropped -13.36% vs IBAT's -28.26%.

Which ETF is better, UTEN or IBAT?

On 1-year performance, IBAT leads with 105.19% vs 3.90% for UTEN. On fees, UTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, UTEN has been the lower-risk option at 1.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UTEN or IBAT?

Over the 1-year period, IBAT has performed better with a 105.19% return vs 3.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UTEN or IBAT?

UTEN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for IBAT.

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

UTEN has the higher dividend yield at 4.04%, compared with 0.76% for IBAT.

What is the main difference between UTEN and IBAT?

UTEN is categorized as Government Bonds, while IBAT is Alternative Energy Equities. UTEN tracks ICE BofA Current 10 Year US Treasury Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IBAT tracks STOXX Global Energy Storage and Materials. They also come from different issuers: US Benchmark Series and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for UTEN and 0.47% for IBAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 vs 0.67), 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.