IBAT ranks 4th and KGRN 16th of 16 funds in the Clean Energy Category.
IBAT vs KGRN
IBAT −0.32pt a year
0.47%0.79%
IBAT 1.8×the volume
23.8K13.4K
IBAT vs KGRN Performance
+12.9%−30.0%
- IBAT 0.47%, better
- KGRN 0.79%
- IBAT $56M
- KGRN $42M
- IBAT +12.9%, better
- KGRN −30.0%
- IBAT 0.85%
- KGRN 1.10%, better
- IBAT 97
- KGRN 51
- IBAT 23.8K sh, better
- KGRN 13.4K sh
- IBAT $35.92
- KGRN $21.19
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | IBAT | KGRN |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A83Higher | F0 |
| Mission | ||
| Risk | A74Higher | C46 |
| Tradability | D37Higher | F16 |
| Holdings | B56Higher | C40 |
| Durability | D36Higher | D25 |
Rank among Clean Energy funds
Same Category. IBAT and KGRN are both graded against the same 16 Clean Energy funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
IBATB
KGRNF
In short
IBAT Most EV funds buy carmakers. IBAT drops a layer down the supply chain to the batteries, hydrogen, fuel cells and storage materials underneath, tracking a global STOXX index at a fee that undercuts much of its thematic peer group.
KGRN The clean-energy shelf is mostly global funds. KGRN goes one country deep: an MSCI index of roughly 50 Chinese environmental-technology names, run by a shop that does nothing but China.
Stated mandate
IBAT The fund seeks to track an index of global companies involved in battery technologies, hydrogen, fuel cells, and other energy-storage solutions. It provides targeted exposure to companies supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.
KGRN The fund seeks to follow the performance of the MSCI China IMI Environment 10/40 Index.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
IBAT vs KGRN Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
IBAT vs KGRN Cost
Overpaying KGRN vs IBAT
$5,756
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
IBAT 0.47%
$9,418
KGRN 0.79%
$15,174
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | IBAT | KGRN | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $847 | $1,405 | $558 |
| 20 | $3,261 | $5,331 | $2,070 |
| 30 | $9,418 | $15,174 | $5,756 |
- 0.47%IBAT, cheaper
- 0.79%KGRN
- Middle half of Clean Energy funds
- Median 0.59%
IBAT 4th cheapest of 16 funds
KGRN 16th cheapest of 16 funds
IBAT vs KGRN Dividends
- IBAT 0.85%
- KGRN 1.10%, better
- IBAT $0.30
- KGRN $0.23
- IBAT $0.18
- KGRN $0.23
- IBAT Jun 15, 2026
- KGRN Dec 22, 2025
- IBAT Jun 18, 2026
- KGRN Dec 23, 2025
- IBAT Twice a year
- KGRN Annual
Distribution history
IBAT vs KGRN Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
Risk facts
- Volatility
- IBAT 30.2%KGRN 27.3%
- Return per unit of risk
- IBAT 0.48KGRN −0.14
- Worst fall
- IBAT −28.2%KGRN −63.7%
- Market sensitivity
- IBAT 1.57KGRN 0.62
IBAT and KGRN in the news
Popular comparisons
- 0.47% · 0.38%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.38%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.47% · 0.39%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.39%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.47% · 0.45%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.45%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
