TAN vs ICLN: Head-to-Head Comparison
TAN vs ICLN: Invesco Solar ETF has an expense ratio of 0.67% while iShares Global Clean Energy ETF charges 0.40%. TAN holds 45 securities vs ICLN's 100. 5-year returns: 2.00% vs 4.00%.
Last updated: April 2026
Clean Energy
Quick Verdict
ICLN edges out TAN with a stronger Beginner Suitability Score (8 vs 7). It offers lower fees for new investors.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | TAN | ICLN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.67% | 0.40% |
| AUM | $1.5B | $3.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.40% | 0.80% |
| Holdings | 45 | 100 |
| 1-Year Return | -15.00% | -10.00% |
| 5-Year Return (Ann.) | 2.00% | 4.00% |
| 10-Year Return (Ann.) | 5.00% | 6.00% |
| Beta | 1.40 | 1.25 |
| P/E Ratio | 32.0 | 28.5 |
TAN 5-year annualized return is 2.00% compared to ICLN's 4.00%. Over 10 years, TAN returned 5.00% vs ICLN's 6.00%.
View data table
| Period | TAN Return | ICLN Return |
|---|---|---|
| YTD | -8.00% | -5.00% |
| 1 Year | -15.00% | -10.00% |
| 3 Year | -20.00% | -15.00% |
| 5 Year | 2.00% | 4.00% |
| 10 Year | 5.00% | 6.00% |
Key Differences Between TAN and ICLN
TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) is a solar energy fund managed by Invesco. TAN focuses specifically on companies in the solar energy industry, including manufacturers of solar panels, inverters, and installation firms. It provides concentrated exposure to one of the fastest-growing segments of the clean energy market. This fund suits investors who believe solar power will play a dominant role in the future global energy mix.
ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) is a clean energy fund managed by BlackRock. ICLN invests in companies worldwide that produce energy from solar, wind, and other renewable sources. It is one of the most popular clean energy ETFs, giving investors exposure to the global transition away from fossil fuels. The fund holds a mix of utility-scale renewable producers and clean energy technology firms across developed and emerging markets.
The most notable differences are in fees (0.67% vs 0.40%), number of holdings (45 vs 100), and 5-year returns (2.00% vs 4.00%).
TAN vs ICLN multi-factor comparison: TAN has a 0.67% expense ratio, 2.00% 5-year return, 45 holdings, 1.40 beta, and 0.40% yield. ICLN has 0.40% expense ratio, 4.00% 5-year return, 100 holdings, 1.25 beta, and 0.80% yield.
View data table
| Metric | TAN | ICLN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.67% | 0.40% |
| 5-Year Return | 2.00% | 4.00% |
| Holdings | 45 | 100 |
| Beta | 1.40 | 1.25 |
| Dividend Yield | 0.40% | 0.80% |
Want the full framework? This 2-hour ETF course teaches you exactly how to pick, buy, and hold profitable ETFs — from zero to confident investor. Under $15.
Ready to invest? Open an IBKR account in 10 minutes and get free stock. $0 commissions on US ETFs • Fractional shares from $1 • 150+ global markets.
Holdings Overlap Analysis
18%
Holdings Overlap
TAN and ICLN share only 18% of their top holdings. These funds are quite different, making them complementary choices if you want broader market coverage.
TAN and ICLN share 18% of their top holdings (low overlap). TAN has 45 total holdings and ICLN has 100. Common holdings include ENPH, FSLR, SEDG.
View data table
| Metric | TAN | ICLN |
|---|---|---|
| Overlap | 18% | 18% |
| Unique Holdings | 82% | 82% |
| Total Holdings | 45 | 100 |
Cost Comparison Over Time
If you invest $10,000 and hold for 20 years (assuming 8% annual returns):
TAN
Fee cost: $5,455
ICLN
Fee cost: $3,334
Over 20 years, the fee difference amounts to $2,121 on a $10,000 investment. ICLN saves you more in fees over time.
On a $10,000 investment over 20 years at 8% return, TAN (0.67% fee) grows to $41,155 while ICLN (0.40% fee) grows to $43,276. The fee difference costs $2,121.
View data table
| Year | TAN Value | ICLN Value |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| 5 | $14,243 | $14,423 |
| 10 | $20,287 | $20,803 |
| 15 | $28,895 | $30,004 |
| 20 | $41,155 | $43,276 |
Which One Should a Beginner Choose?
Choose TAN if: You want investors with high conviction specifically in solar energy's growth trajectory, those who want targeted solar exposure rather than broad clean energy diversification, aggressive growth investors comfortable with significant short-term price swings. It's managed by Invesco with an expense ratio of 0.67%.
Choose ICLN if: You want investors with strong conviction in the long-term growth of renewable energy, those seeking thematic exposure to the global clean energy transition, growth-oriented investors willing to tolerate higher volatility for sector upside. It's managed by BlackRock with an expense ratio of 0.40%.
Can You Own Both TAN and ICLN?
Absolutely! With only 18% overlap, TAN and ICLN complement each other well. A simple portfolio might allocate 60% to one and 40% to the other, or you could pair them with a bond ETF like BND for a complete three-fund portfolio.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I buy TAN or ICLN?▾
ICLN edges out TAN with a stronger Beginner Suitability Score (8 vs 7). It offers lower fees for new investors. However, both are solid options. TAN is best for investors who want investors with high conviction specifically in solar energy's growth trajectory, while ICLN is better suited for investors with strong conviction in the long-term growth of renewable energy.
What is the difference between TAN and ICLN?▾
TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) tracks solar energy investments with 45 holdings and a 0.67% expense ratio. ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) focuses on clean energy with 100 holdings at 0.40%. Their top holdings overlap by 18%.
Can I own both TAN and ICLN?▾
Yes! With only 18% holdings overlap, TAN and ICLN complement each other well. Owning both gives you broader diversification.