BILT vs. IGF
BILT (iShares Infrastructure Active ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BILT is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by iShares, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net). BILT is actively managed, while IGF is passively managed. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BILT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.
Performance
BILT vs. IGF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BILT achieves a 12.98% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 9.70% return.
BILT
- 1D
- 0.41%
- 1M
- -1.21%
- YTD
- 12.98%
- 6M
- 13.89%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IGF
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -0.13%
- YTD
- 9.70%
- 6M
- 10.12%
- 1Y
- 18.50%
- 3Y*
- 16.79%
- 5Y*
- 10.87%
- 10Y*
- 8.80%
BILT vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF | 12.98% | 4.16% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.70% | 5.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between BILT and IGF is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2025 | 0.80 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BILT vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank
BILT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IGF
BILT vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Infrastructure Active ETF (BILT) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.
| BILT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.31 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.17 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.98 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BILT vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BILT drawdown since its inception was -5.38%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BILT and IGF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BILT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.38% | -58.33% | +52.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.87% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.28% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -20.83% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.11% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.85% | -2.96% | +1.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.44% | -11.85% | +10.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.06% | — |
Volatility
BILT vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BILT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.38% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 8.73% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.29% | 10.58% | -0.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.29% | 13.97% | -3.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.29% | 16.82% | -6.53% |
BILT vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BILT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
BILT vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison
BILT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.77%, more than IGF's 2.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF | 5.77% | 0.99% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 2.91% | 3.23% | 3.21% | 3.36% | 2.67% | 2.42% | 2.33% | 3.27% | 3.52% | 2.95% | 2.98% | 3.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BILT and IGF have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BILT.
BILT has the higher dividend yield at 5.77%, compared with 2.91% for IGF.
BILT is categorized as Utilities Equities, while IGF is Industrials Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BILT and 0.39% for IGF.
Find the right allocation for BILT and IGF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer