ACES.USvsICLN.US

ACES.US (ALPS Clean Energy) carries an annualised volatility of 35.5%, categorised as high relative to the long-run US equity benchmark of approximately 15%. ICLN.US (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) registers at 30.2%, a high reading by the same standard.

ACES.US carries meaningfully higher annualised volatility than ICLN.US — a 5.2% gap that, under normal return distributions, implies a wider range of year-over-year outcomes and a greater likelihood of a 20%-or-more drawdown in any given calendar year.

On the downside, ACES.US's maximum peak-to-trough drawdown of 74.2% represents a catastrophic peak-to-trough collapse over the study period. ICLN.US's worst drawdown of 60.8% was a catastrophic peak-to-trough collapse. ICLN.US demonstrated stronger capital preservation characteristics, absorbing market shocks with less peak-to-trough damage.

When evaluating these two funds for a US-domiciled portfolio, it is important to consider that volatility and drawdown metrics are calculated on trailing historical data. Past standard deviations do not guarantee future behaviour, particularly around US Federal Reserve policy shifts, which have historically been the primary driver of cross-asset correlation breakdowns.

ACES.US is positioned primarily within US Equity. ICLN.US's exposure tilts toward US Equity. This sector divergence is one of the key structural drivers of the return and risk differences observed between the two funds over the study window.

For US investors building a diversified portfolio, the sector overlap — or lack thereof — between these two funds directly affects the marginal diversification benefit of holding both. Because both funds draw from the same US sector universe, holding both is unlikely to meaningfully reduce concentration risk beyond what either fund provides individually. An allocation to an uncorrelated asset class — such as US Treasury bonds (TLT) or commodities (PDBC) — would provide greater portfolio-level risk reduction.

Sector concentration is particularly consequential in the US equity market, where the top five S&P 500 holdings — Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA), Amazon (AMZN), and Alphabet (GOOGL) — have at times represented over 25% of the total index by market capitalisation. Funds with heavy US Technology exposure amplify this mega-cap concentration risk, while broader market or equal-weight funds dilute it.

ACES.US currently yields 0.63% annually, while ICLN.US yields 0.90%. On a $10,000 initial investment held over the study period, ACES.US generated approximately $13 in cumulative income distributions versus $0 for ICLN.US — a gap of $13 in favour of ACES.US.

For US taxable account holders, the character of dividend distributions matters as much as the yield itself. Qualified dividends — those from US corporations held longer than the required 60-day holding period — are taxed at preferential long-term capital gains rates (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income bracket). Non-qualified or ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income, which can reach 37% for high earners. US investors should consult their own tax advisors to understand which distribution category applies to each fund's payout history.

Income-focused US investors — particularly those using tax-advantaged accounts such as a 401(k), IRA, or Roth IRA — can compound dividend distributions without immediate tax drag. In a taxable brokerage account, a higher-yielding fund may generate less after-tax wealth than a lower-yielding fund with equivalent total return, depending on the investor's marginal tax rate. The total return (price appreciation plus reinvested dividends) is generally the more complete measure of long-term performance.

ICLN.US's higher yield of 0.90% may offer more immediate income utility for US investors prioritising cash flow, though ACES.US's lower yield may reflect greater internal reinvestment and growth orientation within its underlying holdings.