ICLN vs TAN: returns, risk and drawdowns compared
iShares Global Clean Energy ETF against Invesco Solar ETF, over the same 18 years (July 2008 to October 2026) with dividends reinvested.
Data updated October 2026
From July 2008 to October 2026, ICLN returned 4.0% a year and TAN 8.0% a year on average, so ICLN came out ahead by 4.0% a year. TAN was the more volatile of the two (43.8% against 30.7% a year), and the deepest falls from a month-end high were 86.2% for ICLN and 94.2% for TAN.
The correlation of monthly returns was 0.92: they moved almost in lockstep. Over 185 rolling 3-year periods, ICLN did better in 61% and TAN in 39%.
Side by side
| ICLN | TAN | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual return (CAGR) | −4.0% | −8.0% |
| Total return | −53% | −78% |
| Annual volatility | 30.7% | 43.8% |
| Maximum drawdown (month-end) | −86.2% | −94.2% |
| Worst month | −39.7% | −42.0% |
| Best month | +20.3% | +29.7% |
| Positive months | 52% | 48% |
| Best year | 2020: +141.8% | 2020: +234.0% |
| Worst year | 2011: −44.0% | 2011: −66.2% |
| 1-year return | +2.0% | −9.1% |
| 5 years, a year | −5.8% | −13.8% |
| 10 years, a year | +8.0% | +8.4% |
| Trading currency | USD | USD |
First nine rows: the same 220 months for both funds. Trailing returns: to each fund’s last close.
Growth of 10,000: ICLN vs TAN
Returns by calendar year
| Year | ICLN | TAN |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | +47.0% | +48.3% |
| 2024 | −25.7% | −37.6% |
| 2023 | −20.4% | −26.8% |
| 2022 | −5.4% | −5.2% |
| 2021 | −24.2% | −25.1% |
| 2020 | +141.8% | +234.0% |
| 2019 | +44.4% | +66.5% |
| 2018 | −9.0% | −25.7% |
| 2017 | +21.5% | +54.4% |
| 2016 | −16.9% | −43.2% |
| 2015 | +3.8% | −8.7% |
| 2014 | −4.8% | −1.2% |
| 2013 | +49.1% | +127.9% |
| 2012 | −12.8% | −30.8% |
| 2011 | −44.0% | −66.2% |
| 2010 | −27.5% | −25.9% |
| 2009 | +5.4% | +16.9% |
How the figures are calculated
Total return in the fund’s trading currency, from end-of-day prices with dividends reinvested on the ex-date. The fund’s own ongoing charges are already reflected in its price; trading costs, taxes and currency conversion are not included. Past returns do not predict future returns.
The comparison uses only the months in which both funds have prices, so the figures cover the same period even when one fund is older.
Questions
Which has returned more, ICLN or TAN?
From July 2008 to October 2026, ICLN returned −4.0% a year and TAN −8.0% a year, with dividends reinvested. Over rolling 3-year periods ICLN did better in 61% of cases. Past returns do not predict future returns.
Which is riskier, ICLN or TAN?
Over the same months annual volatility was 30.7% for ICLN and 43.8% for TAN; the deepest fall from a month-end high was 86.2% and 94.2%, and the worst single month −39.7% and −42.0%.
How correlated are ICLN and TAN?
The correlation of their monthly returns was 0.92: they moved almost in lockstep. Holding both adds little diversification compared with holding one.
More comparisons
Source: MarketStack end-of-day prices, total return with dividends reinvested. Figures are historical and descriptive; they are not forecasts and not investment advice. MEDGE Capital does not recommend buying or selling any instrument. Risk disclaimer.