⚖️ ICLN vs TAN Comparison · Free & No Signup

ICLN vs TAN: Broad Clean Energy vs Pure-Play Solar

ICLN covers wind, solar, hydro, and other clean energy globally. TAN is a concentrated bet on solar companies specifically. Both have been hit hard since 2021.

💰 ICLN is cheaper 🔬 Compare top 10 holdings → 💡 Plain-English verdict

🤝 BFF Take

ICLN Is Cheaper and More Diversified — TAN Is a Concentrated Solar Bet

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both thematic ETFs targeting the clean energy transition, but with different scope and concentration. ICLN holds about 100 global clean energy companies — wind, solar, hydro, and related utilities — at 0.40%. TAN holds about 35 solar-specific companies at 0.69%, including manufacturers, installers, and inverter makers. Both ETFs experienced significant losses from their 2021 peaks as rising interest rates pressured capital-intensive renewable energy companies and solar supply chain overcapacity hurt margins. ICLN's broader diversification provides some cushion vs TAN's concentrated solar exposure. For investors who believe in clean energy broadly, ICLN at a lower fee is more defensible.

📋 Quick Takeaways

☀️ICLN covers all clean energy types globally; TAN holds ~35 solar-specific companies only — much higher concentration

💰ICLN costs 0.40% vs TAN's 0.69% — significantly cheaper for broader exposure

📉Both fell 60-70%+ from 2021 peaks due to rising rates and sector headwinds — high-risk thematic bets

📊 Data-Based Take: ICLN has the lower fee

Whether the lower-cost fund suits your situation depends on your existing holdings, account type, tax situation, and how you use each fund. This is a cost comparison, not a personalized recommendation.

✓ Reviewed by a CFA® Charterholder · Data as of Jul 14, 2026 · Educational only, not financial advice

ICLN

iShares Global Clean Energy ETF

Expense Ratio

0.40% ✓

1-Year Return

+43.8%

AUM

$2.9B

Holdings

100

TAN

Invesco Solar ETF

Expense Ratio

0.69%

1-Year Return

+43.5%

AUM

$1.7B

Holdings

📋 ICLN vs TAN — Key Facts Side by Side

Metric	ICLN	TAN
Fund Name	iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	Invesco Solar ETF
Issuer	iShares	Invesco
Tracks Index	S&P Global Clean Energy	MAC Global Solar Energy
Expense Ratio	0.40% ✓	0.69%
Cost per $10K/yr	$40.00	$69.00
AUM	$2.9B	$1.7B
Holdings	100	35
Inception	2008	2008
1-Year Return	+43.76%	+43.50%
3-Year Return	+4.14%	-6.70%
5-Year Return	-2.31%	-8.93%
Dividend Yield	0.90%	—
Holdings Overlap	See holdings overlap →
Avg Bid-Ask Spread	0.02%	0.03%

Expense ratio, AUM, and returns updated Jul 14, 2026 from ETF BFF database. Returns are annualised. Not investment advice.

📊 ICLN vs TAN — Annualised Returns

Annualised returns (trailing, price-based). Past performance does not guarantee future results.

🎯 Which Fund Fits Which Investor?

Often fits investors who...

ICLN

want the lowest fees: saves ~$29/yr per $10K vs TAN
want broader diversification (100 holdings vs 35)
want geographic diversification beyond US stocks

Often fits investors who...

TAN

already use Invesco and prefer staying within one fund family

💰 What the Fee Difference Actually Costs

Adjust the numbers for your situation. This models each fund's expense ratio compounding against your balance over time.

Investment amount$ Years held Expected annual return%

Assumes a constant annual return reinvested, with each fund's expense ratio deducted yearly. Illustrative only; actual returns vary. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

⚙️ Want the Full Interactive Comparison?

Side-by-side holdings overlap, sector breakdown, and live performance tabs, all in one place.

Run Full ICLN vs TAN Comparison → Free · No signup · Instant results

📧 Free Weekly Newsletter

Global ETF investing made simple — one concept a week

Currency risk, hedged vs unhedged, emerging vs developed — demystified in plain English.

Free to learn forever · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime

✅ You're in! Check your inbox for your first issue.

❓ ICLN vs TAN — Frequently Asked Questions

Why have ICLN and TAN performed so poorly recently?

Clean energy ETFs peaked in early 2021 after a massive run driven by Biden administration policy optimism and ESG investing enthusiasm. Since then, multiple headwinds have hit: rising interest rates increased borrowing costs for capital-intensive renewable projects; solar supply chain overcapacity from Chinese manufacturers hurt margins; project delays from permitting and interconnection grid backlogs; and market rotation away from speculative growth themes. Both ICLN and TAN fell 60-70%+ from their peaks.

What companies are in ICLN and TAN?

ICLN holds global clean energy companies including Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark), Enphase Energy, First Solar, Enel SpA (Italy), and other wind/solar/hydro utilities and equipment makers. TAN focuses specifically on solar: First Solar, Enphase Energy, SolarEdge Technologies, Sunrun, Canadian Solar, and solar-adjacent companies like inverter and racking manufacturers. There is significant overlap in pure solar names.

Are clean energy ETFs a good long-term investment?

Clean energy represents a major multi-decade structural trend — the global transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. However, thematic ETFs often price in optimistic expectations, making entry point critical. ICLN and TAN were significantly overvalued in early 2021; current prices are more reasonable. The challenge is that clean energy companies are capital-intensive businesses sensitive to interest rates, government policy, and competition from China's manufacturing scale. The long-term thesis may be correct, but execution risk is high.

How does ICLN compare to the S&P 500 over 10 years?

ICLN has dramatically underperformed the S&P 500 over most 10-year periods. Despite being launched in 2008 to capture the clean energy theme, it has consistently lagged due to sector volatility, policy uncertainty, and competition dynamics. The S&P 500's passive diversification has beaten almost all thematic sector ETFs over most long periods — a reminder that sector concentration requires conviction and timing, not just a correct long-term thesis.

Is there a cheaper clean energy ETF than ICLN?

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF, 0.55%) and CNRG (SPDR S&P Kensho Clean Power, 0.45%) are alternatives but not meaningfully cheaper. ICLN at 0.40% is among the lower-cost options in the clean energy thematic space. The general rule: thematic ETFs are more expensive than broad-market ETFs because they require more active index maintenance and niche licensing.

New to ETF investing? See answers to the most common ETF questions →

📄 ICLN & TAN Fact Sheets

ICLN Fact Sheet→ TAN Fact Sheet→

ℹ️ Data shown is for educational purposes and may not reflect the most current figures. Returns are trailing price-based and exclude dividend reinvestment. Past performance does not guarantee future results. ETF BFF is not a licensed financial advisor — this is not personalized financial advice.