Blog
ICLN vs TAN Which Clean Energy ETF Fits You
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated:
Framing ICLN vs TAN is a shorthand for choosing between a diversified clean-energy ETF and a solar-focused specialist. iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has a 0.38% expense ratio and $2.1 billion in assets under management; Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) charges 0.70% and holds about $1.0 billion. The funds also differ in number of holdings (ICLN 105, TAN 36), sector allocation and five-year drawdown. Robert Izquierdo reported these figures, which are used here to illustrate how fees, concentration and historic downside align with different investor objectives.
Key takeaways
- Expense and scale: ICLN charges a 0.38% expense ratio and has $2.1B AUM; TAN charges 0.7% and has $1.0B AUM.
- Recent performance: Over the trailing 12 months (to 10 September 2026) ICLN returned 23.8% and TAN returned 12.2%.
- Downside and five‑year growth: ICLN's five-year max drawdown was (57.2%) and a $1,000 investment grew to $843; TAN's drawdown was (74.0%) and $1,000 fell to $568.
- Portfolio make-up: ICLN holds about 105 stocks and leans into utilities (41%), technology (32%) and industrials (25%); TAN holds 36 stocks concentrated in energy (55%) and utilities (31%).
- Top positions and yield: ICLN's largest holdings were Bloom Energy (8.94%) and First Solar (7.65%); TAN was more concentrated, with First Solar at 10.22%, Nextracker at 8.81% and Enlight Renewable Energy at 6.87%, according to Izquierdo's published fund breakdown.
Table of contents
How fees and scale change the starting line
Costs and liquidity are the simplest, measurable differences between the two funds. ICLN charges 0.38% and holds $2.1 billion, while TAN charges 0.7% with roughly $1.0 billion in assets. The iShares fund therefore runs at a lower ongoing cost and larger pool of capital, which generally helps bid–ask liquidity for shares and can reduce the drag of fees over time.
Robert Izquierdo notes the expense gap: ICLN's fee is 0.32 percentage points lower than TAN's. He adds that, over time, that cost differential compounds and matters especially in sectors with high price volatility and uncertain returns.
Share prices reported on 10 September 2026 give a snapshot of trading scale: TAN at $47.04 and ICLN at $17.82. For an investor choosing between the two, those market prices, the expense ratio and AUM combine into an immediate tradeoff between cost, liquidity and the ability to enter or exit a position at scale.
Performance and downside: what the five‑year numbers say
Historic returns favour ICLN on the recent one‑year and five‑year snapshots in the dataset. Through 10 September 2026, ICLN posted a 23.8% trailing 12‑month return versus TAN's 12.2%. Over five years the growth-of-$1,000 figures shown are $843 for ICLN and $568 for TAN, a clear difference in cumulative total return.
Downside risk is also quantifiable. TAN recorded a five‑year maximum drawdown of (74.0%), while ICLN's worst dip was (57.2%). Those drawdowns reflect TAN's concentrated exposure to solar names and the sector's sharper booms and busts; ICLN's broader mix of wind, solar and other technologies moderates peak losses in this sample.
Beta also differs: TAN's beta was listed at 1.40 and ICLN's at 1.09, using monthly returns versus the S&P 500. That higher beta for TAN aligns with its larger drawdowns and shows how much more volatile a solar‑only portfolio has been versus the diversified clean‑energy basket.
Holdings and sector exposure determine what you actually own
Under the bonnet, the funds are built very differently. ICLN holds about 105 companies and applies an ESG screen; the portfolio weight tilts toward utilities at 41%, technology at 32% and industrials at 25%. Those sector weights make ICLN a multi-technology vehicle that blends regulated utility revenue with technology and industrial exposure.
TAN is a pure solar play with 36 holdings and concentration in energy (55%) and utilities (31%). The smaller set of names means returns depend heavily on a handful of large positions: First Solar is 10.22% of TAN, Nextracker is 8.81% and Enlight Renewable Energy is 6.87%. By contrast, ICLN lists Bloom Energy at 8.94% and First Solar at 7.65% as its largest positions.
Both funds launched in 2008 according to the published material, but their construction—index tracked, screening rules and weighting—produces systematically different exposure to policy shifts, commodity cycles and company‑level outcomes.
Which fund suits which investor
If an investor's goal is a targeted bet on solar technology and they accept higher volatility for the potential of higher sector‑specific gains, TAN is the specialist vehicle shown in these figures. The published comparison notes that TAN tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index and that changes to that index in June will affect TAN's future composition.
If an investor wants broader exposure across renewable technologies, a lower fee and a higher trailing 12-month return in the published snapshot, Robert Izquierdo said he would choose ICLN over TAN for those reasons.
Disclosure matters: Robert Izquierdo discloses he holds First Solar shares, and The Motley Fool discloses holdings in Bloom Energy, First Solar and Nextpower (published on Currently.com). Readers should consider those positions when weighing Izquierdo's preference against the raw fund numbers.
| Metric | TAN | ICLN |
|---|---|---|
| Share price | $47.04 (as of 10 September 2026) | $17.82 (as of 10 September 2026) |
| Expense ratio | 0.7% | 0.38% |
| Trailing 12‑month return | 12.2% | 23.8% |
| Dividend yield | None | 1.0% |
| Beta (vs S&P 500) | 1.40 | 1.09 |
| AUM | $1.0B | $2.1B |
| Holdings count | 36 | 105 |
| Five‑year max drawdown | (74.0%) | (57.2%) |
| Growth of $1,000 (5 yr) | $568 | $843 |
The case for and against each fund
The case for
- ICLN's lower expense ratio (0.38%) and larger AUM ($2.1B) support liquidity and reduce fee drag for multi‑year holders.
- The rise in electricity demand tied to AI infrastructure, noted in the published comparison, increases potential long‑term demand for renewables across wind and solar, which benefits diversified clean‑energy holders.
The case against
- TAN's concentrated solar exposure and a five‑year max drawdown of (74.0%) mean shorter windows can produce much larger losses for that fund.
- Index changes to the MAC Global Solar Energy Index in June could materially alter TAN's composition and therefore its future returns.
What to be careful about
- Concentration risk: TAN's 36 holdings and top weightings (First Solar 10.22%, Nextracker 8.81%) make performance highly dependent on a few names.
- Volatility risk: TAN's five‑year max drawdown of (74.0%) illustrates the deeper troughs a solar‑only strategy has experienced.
- Tracking/index risk: TAN follows the MAC Global Solar Energy Index, which underwent changes in June that will influence TAN's exposure going forward.
- Manager and fee risk: the 0.32 percentage‑point expense difference (0.7% vs 0.38%) compounds over time and reduces net returns for equivalent gross performance.
The bottom line
The published figures show a clear tradeoff. TAN concentrates exposure to the solar value chain and has produced larger drawdowns but remains the vehicle for a targeted solar bet. ICLN offers broader exposure across wind, solar and related technologies, a lower 0.38% fee, a $2.1B asset base and, in the provided snapshot, stronger recent total return. Which fund suits an investor depends on tolerance for concentration and volatility versus a preference for diversification and lower ongoing costs. Readers should also note the disclosure about positions in First Solar, Bloom Energy and others in the published material when weighting the recommendation.
What to watch
- Watch for the funds' next holdings updates; no date has been set.
- Watch for any further index announcements affecting the MAC Global Solar Energy Index; no date has been set.
Frequently asked questions
How do the funds' fees compare?
ICLN charges 0.38% while TAN charges 0.7%, a gap of 0.32 percentage points; that fee difference reduces net returns for identical gross performance over time.
Which fund is more concentrated in solar?
TAN is the solar specialist with 36 holdings and sector weights of about 55% energy and 31% utilities; its top holdings include First Solar at 10.22% and Nextracker at 8.81%.
What do the five‑year figures show about downside?
Over five years TAN recorded a max drawdown of (74.0%) with $1,000 falling to $568, while ICLN's max drawdown was (57.2%) with $1,000 growing to $843, indicating deeper troughs for the solar specialist in that period.
Related reading
This article is information, not financial advice. Anyone acting on it should do their own checks.