EFRA vs. SEA

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

EFRA (iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF) and SEA (U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds - EFRA tracks the FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index while SEA tracks the U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EFRA returned 11.09%/yr vs 17.18%/yr for SEA. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EFRA charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for SEA.

Performance

EFRA vs. SEA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFRA achieves a 8.47% return, which is significantly lower than SEA's 24.68% return.

EFRA

• 1D: 0.57%
• 1M: 3.48%
• 6M: 4.59%
• YTD: 8.47%
• 1Y: 10.13%
• 3Y*: 11.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SEA

• 1D: 2.57%
• 1M: 0.95%
• 6M: 18.79%
• YTD: 24.68%
• 1Y: 31.95%
• 3Y*: 17.18%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFRA vs. SEA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	8.47%	13.76%	8.09%	14.49%	8.75%
SEA U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo ETF	24.68%	16.78%	2.52%	19.33%	17.00%

Correlation

The correlation between EFRA and SEA is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2022	0.49

EFRA vs. SEA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFRA	SEA
Industrials	64.1%	89.6%
Utilities	24.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.4%	-
Technology	2.8%	0.1%
Basic Materials	2.5%	-
Communication Services	-	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	8.4%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EFRA vs. SEA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFRA

EFRA Risk / Return Rank: 23
EFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
EFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
EFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 22
EFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
EFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 23

SEA

SEA Risk / Return Rank: 73
SEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
SEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
SEA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
SEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
SEA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

EFRA vs. SEA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) and U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo ETF (SEA). 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.

	EFRA	SEA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.87	-1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	2.68	-1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.32	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	3.01	-2.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.38	10.96	-8.58

EFRA vs. SEA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFRA Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the SEA Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFRA and SEA, 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

EFRA vs. SEA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFRA drawdown since its inception was -16.25%, smaller than the maximum SEA drawdown of -39.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFRA and SEA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFRA	SEA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.25%	-39.53%	+23.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.20%	-10.67%	-0.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.25%	-32.42%	+16.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.88%	0.00%	-3.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.68%	-14.06%	+10.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.27%	2.93%	+1.34%

Volatility

EFRA vs. SEA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF (EFRA) is 4.27%, while U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo ETF (SEA) has a volatility of 6.29%. This indicates that EFRA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SEA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFRA	SEA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	6.29%	-2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.94%	13.33%	-1.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.73%	17.12%	-2.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.57%	21.64%	-6.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	21.64%	-6.07%

EFRA vs. SEA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFRA has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than SEA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFRA vs. SEA - Dividend Comparison

EFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.06%, less than SEA's 5.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EFRA iShares Environmental Infrastructure and Industrials ETF	4.06%	4.34%	3.79%	1.85%	0.14%
SEA U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo ETF	5.42%	6.76%	18.47%	9.85%	18.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFRA and SEA in my portfolio?

EFRA and SEA have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFRA or SEA?

SEA has higher volatility (6.29%) compared to EFRA (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFRA dropped -16.25% vs SEA's -39.53%.

Which ETF is better, EFRA or SEA?

On 3-year performance, SEA leads with 17.18% vs 11.09% for EFRA. On fees, EFRA is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, EFRA has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFRA or SEA?

Over the 3-year period, SEA has performed better with a 17.18% return vs 11.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFRA or SEA?

EFRA is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for SEA.

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

SEA has the higher dividend yield at 5.42%, compared with 4.06% for EFRA.

What is the main difference between EFRA and SEA?

EFRA tracks FTSE Green Revenues Select Infrastructure and Industrials Index, while SEA tracks U.S. Global Sea to Sky Cargo Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: iShares and US Global. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for EFRA and 0.60% for SEA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SEA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 0.69), 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.