CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L).
CIF.TO and MLPP.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CIF.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. It was launched on Aug 27, 2008. MLPP.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the MSCI World/Energy NR USD. It was launched on May 15, 2013. Both CIF.TO and MLPP.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CIF.TO or MLPP.L.
Key characteristics
| CIF.TO | MLPP.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 19.81% | 13.60% |
| 1Y Return | 24.21% | 21.61% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 14.40% | 32.73% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 12.98% | 14.97% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 8.58% | 6.59% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.99 | 1.49 |
| Daily Std Dev | 11.79% | 13.62% |
| Max Drawdown | -42.37% | -71.89% |
| Current Drawdown | -0.22% | -4.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIF.TO and MLPP.L is 0.37, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 19.81% return, which is significantly higher than MLPP.L's 13.60% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has outperformed MLPP.L with an annualized return of 8.58%, while MLPP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 6.59% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPP.L's 0.50% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L). 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.
Dividends
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Dividend Comparison
CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.79%, less than MLPP.L's 11.09% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIF.TO iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF | 2.79% | 2.63% | 2.83% | 2.49% | 2.30% | 2.05% | 2.73% | 2.53% | 2.01% | 2.69% | 6.64% | 4.27% |
MLPP.L Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) | 11.09% | 10.96% | 9.61% | 11.58% | 15.08% | 12.89% | 12.65% | 11.00% | 10.02% | 15.00% | 10.28% | 4.23% |
Drawdowns
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, smaller than the maximum MLPP.L drawdown of -71.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and MLPP.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CIF.TO vs. MLPP.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 3.89%, while Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L) has a volatility of 6.50%. This indicates that CIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MLPP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.