BILD vs. EFRA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BILD (Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF) and EFRA (iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BILD is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Macquarie, while EFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index. BILD is actively managed, while EFRA is passively managed. Over the past year, BILD returned 16.09% vs 10.45% for EFRA. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BILD charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for EFRA.

Performance

BILD vs. EFRA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF (BILD) and iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BILD achieves a 7.62% return, which is significantly higher than EFRA's 5.65% return.

BILD

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 7.62%
• 6M: 7.81%
• 1Y: 16.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFRA

• 1D: -1.00%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: 5.65%
• 6M: 4.75%
• 1Y: 10.45%
• 3Y*: 11.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BILD vs. EFRA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BILD Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF	7.62%	21.08%	-2.68%	3.73%
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	5.65%	13.76%	8.09%	7.39%

Correlation

The correlation between BILD and EFRA is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 29, 2023	0.63

The correlation between BILD and EFRA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

BILD vs. EFRA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BILD	EFRA
Utilities	52.8%	24.2%
Industrials	22.1%	64.1%
Energy	18.2%	-
Real Estate	5.4%	-
Communication Services	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

BILD vs. EFRA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BILD

BILD Risk / Return Rank: 47
BILD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
BILD Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
BILD Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BILD Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
BILD Martin Ratio Rank: 44

EFRA

EFRA Risk / Return Rank: 21
EFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
EFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
EFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
EFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
EFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 22

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BILD vs. EFRA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF (BILD) and iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BILD	EFRA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	0.72	+0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	1.11	+0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.13	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	0.94	+1.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.81	2.51	+4.30

BILD vs. EFRA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BILD Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is higher than the EFRA Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BILD and EFRA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BILD vs. EFRA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BILD drawdown since its inception was -14.78%, smaller than the maximum EFRA drawdown of -16.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BILD and EFRA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BILD	EFRA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.78%	-16.25%	+1.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.05%	-11.20%	+5.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.71%	-6.38%	+1.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.72%	-3.67%	-0.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.37%	4.17%	-1.80%

Volatility

BILD vs. EFRA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF (BILD) is 2.98%, while iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) has a volatility of 4.96%. This indicates that BILD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFRA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BILD	EFRA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.98%	4.96%	-1.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.88%	11.79%	-2.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.86%	14.59%	-3.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.15%	15.58%	-2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.15%	15.58%	-2.43%

BILD vs. EFRA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BILD has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than EFRA's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

BILD vs. EFRA - Dividend Comparison

BILD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.81%, more than EFRA's 4.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BILD Macquarie Global Listed Infrastructure ETF	5.81%	3.05%	5.53%	0.52%	0.00%
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	4.17%	4.34%	3.79%	1.85%	0.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BILD and EFRA in my portfolio?

BILD and EFRA have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BILD or EFRA?

EFRA has higher volatility (4.96%) compared to BILD (2.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BILD dropped -14.78% vs EFRA's -16.25%.

Which ETF is better, BILD or EFRA?

On 1-year performance, BILD leads with 16.09% vs 10.45% for EFRA. On fees, EFRA is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BILD has been the lower-risk option at 2.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BILD or EFRA?

Over the 1-year period, BILD has performed better with a 16.09% return vs 10.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BILD or EFRA?

EFRA is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for BILD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BILD or EFRA?

BILD has the higher dividend yield at 5.81%, compared with 4.17% for EFRA.

What is the main difference between BILD and EFRA?

BILD is categorized as Energy Equities, while EFRA is Industrials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Macquarie and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for BILD and 0.47% for EFRA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 0.72), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.