ICLN Charges 0.38% vs. TAN's 0.70%: Fee, Beta Decide ETF Duel

For portfolio managers, the ICLN vs. TAN choice is less about clean energy and more about expense and risk budgeting. Paying 0.70% for concentrated solar beta of 1.40 is a riskier, more expensive proposition than owning 105 diversified clean-energy names for 0.38% with a 1.09 beta. The fee gap of 32 basis points compounds meaningfully over a long holding period.

The clean-energy ETF decision narrowed on September 14, 2026, as The Motley Fool compared two of the most visible renewable-energy products: the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and the Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). Both funds were under pressure on the day, with TAN down 1.97% and ICLN down 2.01%, but the comparison is less about a single session and more about the structural trade-offs between broad decarbonization exposure and concentrated solar beta. The central takeaway is straightforward: ICLN is the cheaper and more diversified vehicle, while TAN is a higher-octane, solar-specific wager that costs more to own.

“

Its top positions are even more concentrated: First Solar at 10.22%, Nextracker at 8.81%, and Enlight Renewable Energy at 6.87%.

Cost is the first differentiator. ICLN carries an annual expense ratio of 0.38%, while TAN charges 0.70%, meaning the iShares fund is 0.32 percentage points cheaper. That gap may appear modest in a single year, but in a volatile sector where total returns can be negative for long stretches, fee drag compounds in both directions. For a $10,000 investment, the difference is roughly $32 per year before compounding; over a 10-year holding period the lower-cost fund retains several hundred dollars more in capital assuming identical gross returns. That is not a trivial amount for a buy-and-hold climate allocation.

Portfolio structure explains the risk and return profiles. ICLN owns 105 global companies involved in sustainable power and applies an ESG screen to its selection process. Its sector mix tilts toward utilities at 41%, with technology at 32% and industrials at 25%, which means a large share of its holdings are regulated or contracted cash-flow businesses such as utilities and equipment manufacturers rather than pure solar developers. Its largest positions include Bloom Energy at 8.94% and First Solar at 7.65%. TAN, by contrast, tracks the MAC Global Solar Energy Index and holds just 36 names, with 55% of assets in energy and 31% in utilities. Its top positions are even more concentrated: First Solar at 10.22%, Nextracker at 8.81%, and Enlight Renewable Energy at 6.87%. TAN’s concentration means the fund’s returns will be more heavily influenced by solar module prices, installation demand, tax credits, and trade policies.

That concentration shows up clearly in the volatility numbers. ICLN’s beta relative to the S&P 500 is 1.09, meaning its monthly returns have been only slightly more volatile than the broad equity market over the available history. TAN’s beta is 1.40, or about 40% more volatile than the S&P 500. In practical terms, TAN can be expected to rally harder in solar-friendly environments but fall more sharply when subsidy uncertainty, panel oversupply, or rising interest rates hit the group. ICLN, with its broad mix of utilities and technology, tends to move more like a diversified renewable infrastructure portfolio than a single-industry bet.