IBAT vs QCLN: Grades, Fees and Holdings Compared

iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

IBATBNasdaq

First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund

QCLNBNasdaq

Overlap

11.6%by weight

Expense ratio

IBAT −0.12pt a year

IBAT0.47%QCLN0.59%

Avg volume · 30D

QCLN 6.9×the volume

IBAT23.8KQCLN164K

IBAT vs QCLN Performance

Oct 31, 2025 – Nov 2, 2026

+12.9%IBAT−5.2%QCLN

Expense ratio: IBAT 0.47%, better; QCLN 0.59%
Fund size: IBAT $56M; QCLN $468M
1Y total return: IBAT +12.9%, better; QCLN −5.2%
Yield (12M): IBAT 0.85%, better; QCLN 0.12%
Holdings: IBAT 97; QCLN 58
Avg volume (30D): IBAT 23.8K sh; QCLN 164K sh, better
NAV per share: IBAT $35.92; QCLN $43.34
52W range

ETF.net Grade

Pillar letters and Scores for IBAT, QCLN, with each pillar’s weight
Pillar	IBAT	QCLN
Cost30% weight	A83Higher	C50
Mission25% weight	Not scored	Not scored
Risk15% weight	A74Higher	C43
Tradability15% weight	D37	A88Higher
Holdings10% weight	B56Higher	D32
Durability5% weight	D36	A76Higher

Rank among Clean Energy funds

How we build Categories ›

Same Category. IBAT and QCLN are both graded against the same 16 Clean Energy funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Clean Energy⁠

Category · 16 funds

See all 16 ›

IBAT ranks 4th and QCLN 6th of 16 funds in the Clean Energy Category.

Rank 1AICLNiShares Global Clean Energy ETFScore 80
Rank 2AFRNWFidelity Clean Energy ETFScore 77
Rank 3BCNRGState Street SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETFScore 66
Rank 4BIBATiShares Energy Storage & Materials ETFScore 65
Rank 5BFANFirst Trust Global Wind Energy ETFScore 57
Rank 6BQCLNFirst Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index FundScore 55
Rank 7CACESALPS Clean Energy ETFScore 52

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

IBATBiShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF

QCLNBFirst Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund

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.

QCLN Launched in 2007, an early arrival in clean energy that still runs the theme the old-fashioned way: a concentrated book of about 40 stocks tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index.

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.

QCLN The Fund seeks investment results that generally correspond to the price and yield of its designated clean-energy index, before fees and expenses.

Why people hold it

IBAT 0.47% a year, cheaper than Global X's DRIV (0.68%) and Amplify's BATT (0.59%).
Buys the storage layer, not the showroom: battery technology, hydrogen, fuel cells and the materials that feed them.ishares.com
Global mandate, roughly 80 holdings: miners, chemical firms and equipment makers a US large-cap index never touches.
Sits in the upper tier of its battery and EV thematic group on our review.

QCLN A 2007 launch date means a long, public record across multiple clean-energy cycles, not a fund built for last year's headlines.
Straightforward job: track a published Nasdaq clean-energy index. No manager hunches, no derivative sleeve, no structural quirks flagged in our review.
Getting in and out is one of its stronger suits: among the more tradable funds in the clean-energy group.
The 0.59% fee sits right on the clean-energy category median, and income is paid on a quarterly schedule.

Worth knowing

IBAT One theme, one supply chain. Battery and materials demand drives the whole basket in the same direction at the same time.
BlackRock applies business involvement screens, so the portfolio is a filtered slice of the industry rather than the full map.ishares.com
Launched in 2024, so the record is short and payouts come once or twice a year at most. Not an income holding.

QCLN About 40 holdings is a narrow bench. Single names carry real weight, and portfolio construction is the weakest part of the package.
The ride is demanding even by thematic standards; volatility is the biggest trade-off here.
Cost-first shoppers have cheaper doors into the theme: ICLN and FRNW both charge 0.39%.

Full IBAT profile⁠

Full QCLN profile⁠

IBAT vs QCLN Holdings

How IBAT and QCLN differ

Overlap by weight

11.6%

Shared holdings make up 15.5% of QCLN and 11.6% of IBAT.

Level by level

Holdings11 in both11.6%
Countryby domicile28.9%
Sector7 Sectors53.5%
Asset classEquity100%

Sector

Sector weights in IBAT and QCLN, widest gap first
Sector	More in IBATMore in QCLN	IBAT	QCLN
Materials	IBAT +34.7 points	42.2%	7.5%
Consumer Discretionary	QCLN +14.0 points	2.0%	16.0%
Utilities	QCLN +12.7 points	0.0%	12.7%
Industrials	IBAT +11.8 points	31.1%	19.3%
Energy	QCLN +11.5 points	0.0%	11.5%
Technology	QCLN +6.5 points	24.7%	31.2%
Financials	QCLN +1.7 points	0.0%	1.7%

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in IBAT and QCLN, widest gap first
Country	More in IBATMore in QCLN	IBAT	QCLN
United States	QCLN +62.0 points	28.9%	90.9%
Japan	IBAT +31.7 points	31.7%	0.0%
South Korea	IBAT +11.7 points	11.7%	0.0%
France	IBAT +10.0 points	10.0%	0.0%
Germany	IBAT +6.7 points	6.7%	0.0%
China	IBAT +6.7 points	6.7%	0.0%
Taiwan	IBAT +4.2 points	4.2%	0.0%
Canada	QCLN +3.8 points	0.0%	3.8%
Other countries (5)	QCLN +5.3 points	0.0%	5.3%

Outside the US: IBAT 68% developed, 32% emerging.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

IBAT56.5%
QCLN60.9%

Securities held

IBAT85
QCLN57

Asset class

IBAT: Equity
QCLN: Equity

Holdings

Only in IBAT74
In both11
Only in QCLN46

Only in IBAT

74 securities, 88.1% of IBAT by weight

Air Products and Chemicals7.32%
Lair Liquide Societe Anonyme Pour7.07%
Basf N6.53%
Tdk5.99%
Murata Manufacturing5.60%
Samsung Sdi Ltd4.94%
Linde PLC4.13%
Resonac Holdings4.06%
Asahi Kasei3.70%
Eaton PLC3.35%
Furukawa Electric Ltd3.35%
Schneider Electric2.94%
Mitsubishi Chemical Group2.71%
Delta Electronics2.64%
Contemporary Amperex Technology A2.42%
Lg Energy Solution Ltd2.35%
Contemporary Amperex Technology Class2.33%
Shin Etsu Chemical2.25%
Lg Chem Ltd2.15%
Samsung Electro Mechanics Ltd1.46%
Kaori Heat Treatment Ltd1.12%
Kyocera0.90%
Dow0.81%
Gs Yuasa0.79%
Entegris Inc0.76%
Quantumscape Class A0.57%
Toray Industries0.36%
Ganfeng Lithium Ltd H0.36%
Yadea Group Holdings0.33%
Eve Energy A0.24%
Seojin System Ltd0.24%
Nichicon Corp0.24%
Calb Class H Ltd H0.22%
Doosan Fuel Cell Ltd0.22%
Ningbo Deye Technology Corp A0.21%
Syensqo NV0.20%
Advanced Energy Solution Holding L0.20%
Evonik Industries AG0.19%
Ceres Power Holdings PLC0.16%
Lg Chem Preferred Stock Ltd0.16%
Mitsui Chemicals0.16%
Zaptec0.15%
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Inc0.15%
Ganfeng Lithium Group Ltd A0.13%
Umicore SA0.13%
Itm Power PLC0.13%
Arkema SA0.13%
Mico Ltd0.12%
Gotion High-Tech Ltd A0.10%
Jiangsu Zenergy Battery Technologi0.09%

Only in QCLN

46 securities, 84.3% of QCLN by weight

Tesla, Inc.9.78%
ON Semiconductor Corporation8.71%
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.8.60%
Rivian Automotive, Inc. (Class A)6.16%
Nextpower Inc. (Class A)4.35%
First Solar, Inc.3.89%
Acuity Inc.3.61%
Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd.3.51%
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.3.37%
Brookfield Renewable Partners LP3.26%
Albemarle Corporation3.04%
MP Materials Corp.2.67%
Vicor Corporation2.49%
Allegro Microsystems, Inc.2.16%
Ormat Technologies, Inc.2.09%
HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.1.81%
Itron, Inc.1.59%
Clearway Energy, Inc. (Class C)1.47%
Universal Display Corporation1.46%
SOLV Energy, Inc. (Class A)1.09%
Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. (ADR)0.99%
Power Integrations, Inc.0.93%
Navitas Semiconductor Corp. (Class A)0.84%
Sunrun Inc.0.68%
Renew Energy Global Plc (Class A)0.64%
American Superconductor Corporation0.50%
Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. (Class A)0.46%
Lucid Group, Inc. (Class A)0.45%
Wolfspeed, Inc.0.44%
Willdan Group, Inc.0.42%
XPLR Infrastructure LP0.34%
T1 Energy Inc.0.30%
Sigma Lithium Corporation0.30%
LSI Industries Inc.0.28%
Ameresco, Inc. (Class A)0.27%
Enovix Corporation0.26%
Energy Vault Holdings, Inc.0.21%
Array Technologies, Inc.0.20%
Clean Energy Fuels Corp.0.12%
Montauk Renewables, Inc.0.12%
Gevo, Inc.0.12%
Polestar Automotive Holding UK Plc (Class A) (ADR)0.10%
Electrovaya Inc.0.10%
EVgo Inc.0.07%
NeoVolta, Inc.0.05%
Elevra Lithium Limited (ADR)0.03%

Weight gaps

All 11 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in IBAT and QCLN, widest gap first
Holding	More in IBATMore in QCLN	IBAT	QCLN
Bloom Energy Class ABE	QCLN +1.76 points	7.11%	8.87%
EnersysENS	QCLN +0.64 points	1.55%	2.19%
Enphase EnergyENPH	QCLN +0.38 points	0.90%	1.28%
Plug PowerPLUG	QCLN +0.26 points	0.46%	0.72%
Solaredge TechnologiesSEDG	QCLN +0.21 points	0.49%	0.70%
Fluence Energy Inc Class AFLNC	QCLN +0.17 points	0.14%	0.31%
Amprius Technologies IncAMPX	QCLN +0.15 points	0.33%	0.48%
Fuelcell Energy IncFCEL	QCLN +0.10 points	0.24%	0.34%
Eos Energy Enterprises Class AEOSE	QCLN +0.08 points	0.18%	0.26%
Ballard Power Systems IncBLDP	QCLN +0.08 points	0.10%	0.18%
Aspen AerogelsASPN	QCLN +0.06 points	0.10%	0.16%

All 82 IBAT holdings⁠All 57 QCLN 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 QCLN Cost

Overpaying QCLN vs IBAT

$2,217

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

IBAT 0.47%
$9,418
QCLN 0.59%
$11,635

Amount$10,000

Years30 years

Cost over time

IBAT 0.47%
QCLN 0.59%
Overpaying

Year by year

Year	IBAT	QCLN	Overpaying
10	$847	$1,058	$211
20	$3,261	$4,051	$790
30	$9,418	$11,635	$2,217

Expense ratio

0.47%IBAT, cheaper
0.59%QCLN

IBAT0.47%QCLN0.59%

0.38%0.79%

Middle half of Clean Energy funds
Median 0.59%

IBAT 4th cheapest of 16 funds

QCLN 8th cheapest of 16 funds

IBAT vs QCLN Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 2, 2026

Yield (12M): IBAT 0.85%, better; QCLN 0.12%
Payout (12M): IBAT $0.30; QCLN $0.05
Last payment: IBAT $0.18; QCLN $0.0068
Ex-dividend: IBAT Jun 15, 2026; QCLN Mar 26, 2026
Paid on: IBAT Jun 18, 2026; QCLN Mar 31, 2026
Frequency: IBAT Twice a year; QCLN Quarterly

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

IBATTwice a year · 5 paymentsAll IBAT payments⁠

QCLNQuarterly · 32 paymentsAll QCLN payments⁠

IBAT vs QCLN Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years: IBAT 30.2%since Apr 2024QCLN 34.1%
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years: IBAT 0.48since Apr 2024QCLN 0.30
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years: IBAT −28.2%since Mar 2024QCLN −69.5%
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years: IBAT 1.57QCLN 2.11; Market = 1

IBAT and QCLN in the news

All news⁠

Deep Dive
Solar funds fall 3% after the Fed hike. The 1,137 MW of PPAs pay from 2029
Sep 20, 2026IBATQCLN
Deep Dive
The grid fund is more than five times the clean-energy flagship, and they barely overlap
Oct 26, 2026QCLN

Popular comparisons

IBATBvsICLNA
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF · iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
Expense ratio
0.47% · 0.38%
Category
QCLNBvsICLNA
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund · iShares Global Clean Energy ETF
Expense ratio
0.59% · 0.38%
Category
IBATBvsFRNWA
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF · Fidelity Clean Energy ETF
Expense ratio
0.47% · 0.39%
Category
QCLNBvsFRNWA
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund · Fidelity Clean Energy ETF
Expense ratio
0.59% · 0.39%
Category
IBATBvsCNRGB
iShares Energy Storage & Materials ETF · State Street SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
Expense ratio
0.47% · 0.45%
Category
QCLNBvsCNRGB
First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund · State Street SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power ETF
Expense ratio
0.59% · 0.45%
Category

IBAT vs QCLN

In short

Stated mandate

Why people hold it

Worth knowing

How IBAT and QCLN differ

Level by level

Sector

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Concentration

Asset class

Holdings

Only in IBAT

Only in QCLN

Weight gaps

Cost over time

Year by year

Distribution history

Fall from peak · 5 years

Risk facts

Solar funds fall 3% after the Fed hike. The 1,137 MW of PPAs pay from 2029

The grid fund is more than five times the clean-energy flagship, and they barely overlap

How IBAT and QCLN differ

Level by level

Sector

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Concentration

Asset class

Holdings

Only in IBAT

Only in QCLN

Weight gaps