EMIF vs. BKGI

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMIF (iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF) and BKGI (Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. EMIF is passively managed, while BKGI is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMIF returned 10.24%/yr vs 21.24%/yr for BKGI. Their 0.42 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EMIF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for BKGI.

Performance

EMIF vs. BKGI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF (EMIF) and Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMIF achieves a 0.44% return, which is significantly lower than BKGI's 14.23% return.

EMIF

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: -7.11%
• YTD: 0.44%
• 1Y: 16.15%
• 3Y*: 10.24%
• 5Y*: 5.68%
• 10Y*: 1.66%
• ALL TIME*: 3.28%

BKGI

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 1.55%
• 6M: 8.99%
• YTD: 14.23%
• 1Y: 20.08%
• 3Y*: 21.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 21.98%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	$18.95M	$14.99M	$11.61M
EMIF iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF	$49.09K	$40.45K	$71.84K

EMIF vs. BKGI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMIF iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF	0.44%	33.90%	1.21%	5.67%	6.52%
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	14.23%	37.53%	12.35%	9.72%	8.54%

Correlation

The correlation between EMIF and BKGI is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2022	0.42

EMIF vs. BKGI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMIF	BKGI
Industrials	44.6%	11.5%
Utilities	37.1%	46.0%
Energy	18.3%	21.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	19.0%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

EMIF vs. BKGI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EMIF

EMIF Risk / Return Rank: 35
EMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
EMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 38
EMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
EMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 27

BKGI

BKGI Risk / Return Rank: 80
BKGI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
BKGI Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BKGI Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BKGI Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BKGI Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EMIF vs. BKGI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF (EMIF) and Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI). 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.

	EMIF	BKGI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.80	-0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.45	2.51	-1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.32	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	3.38	-2.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.23	10.08	-7.85

EMIF vs. BKGI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMIF Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the BKGI Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMIF and BKGI, 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

EMIF vs. BKGI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMIF drawdown since its inception was -48.02%, which is greater than BKGI's maximum drawdown of -14.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIF and BKGI.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMIF	BKGI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.02%	-14.79%	-33.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.71%	-6.16%	-9.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.70%	-11.37%	-5.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.57%	-1.78%	-11.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.89%	-2.54%	-13.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.00%	2.06%	+4.94%

Volatility

EMIF vs. BKGI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF (EMIF) has a higher volatility of 4.41% compared to Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF (BKGI) at 3.04%. This indicates that EMIF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BKGI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMIF	BKGI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.41%	3.04%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.24%	9.55%	+3.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.21%	11.58%	+4.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.67%	13.95%	+5.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.54%	13.95%	+6.59%

EMIF vs. BKGI - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMIF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BKGI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMIF vs. BKGI - Dividend Comparison

EMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.21%, more than BKGI's 2.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BKGI Bny Mellon Global Infrastructure Income ETF	2.89%	2.65%	4.55%	4.55%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EMIF iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF	4.21%	4.96%	4.12%	2.64%	3.08%	3.94%	2.54%	2.07%	2.64%	2.58%	3.16%	2.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMIF and BKGI in my portfolio?

EMIF and BKGI have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMIF or BKGI?

EMIF has higher volatility (4.41%) compared to BKGI (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMIF dropped -48.02% vs BKGI's -14.79%.

Which ETF is better, EMIF or BKGI?

On 3-year performance, BKGI leads with 21.24% vs 10.24% for EMIF. On fees, BKGI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, BKGI has been the lower-risk option at 3.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMIF or BKGI?

Over the 3-year period, BKGI has performed better with a 21.24% return vs 10.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMIF or BKGI?

BKGI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMIF or BKGI?

EMIF has the higher dividend yield at 4.21%, compared with 2.89% for BKGI.

What is the main difference between EMIF and BKGI?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMIF and 0.65% for BKGI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BKGI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs 0.97), 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.