BILT vs. ZAP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BILT (iShares Infrastructure Active ETF) and ZAP (Global X U.S. Electrification ETF) are both Utilities Equities funds. BILT is actively managed, while ZAP is passively managed. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BILT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for ZAP.

Performance

BILT vs. ZAP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Infrastructure Active ETF (BILT) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BILT achieves a 12.98% return, which is significantly lower than ZAP's 20.08% return.

BILT

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -1.21%
• YTD: 12.98%
• 6M: 13.89%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZAP

• 1D: 1.43%
• 1M: 1.55%
• YTD: 20.08%
• 6M: 19.91%
• 1Y: 35.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BILT vs. ZAP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF	12.98%	4.16%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	20.08%	3.75%

Correlation

The correlation between BILT and ZAP is 0.62, 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	0.62

Return for Risk

BILT vs. ZAP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BILT

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

ZAP

ZAP Risk / Return Rank: 73
ZAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ZAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ZAP Omega Ratio Rank: 66
ZAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
ZAP Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

BILT vs. ZAP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Infrastructure Active ETF (BILT) and Global X U.S. Electrification ETF (ZAP). 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	ZAP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.28	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.05	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.38	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.87	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	11.92	—

Drawdowns

BILT vs. ZAP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BILT drawdown since its inception was -5.38%, smaller than the maximum ZAP drawdown of -12.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BILT and ZAP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BILT	ZAP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.38%	-12.38%	+7.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	0.00%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.44%	-2.60%	+1.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.95%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BILT	ZAP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.08%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	12.06%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.29%	15.47%	-5.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.29%	16.92%	-6.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.29%	16.92%	-6.63%

BILT vs. ZAP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BILT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than ZAP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BILT vs. ZAP - Dividend Comparison

BILT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.77%, more than ZAP's 1.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF	5.77%	0.99%	0.00%
ZAP Global X U.S. Electrification ETF	1.49%	1.81%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BILT and ZAP in my portfolio?

BILT and ZAP have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BILT or ZAP?

On fees, ZAP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BILT or ZAP?

ZAP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BILT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BILT or ZAP?

BILT has the higher dividend yield at 5.77%, compared with 1.49% for ZAP.

What is the main difference between BILT and ZAP?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BILT and 0.50% for ZAP.