EMIF vs. MLPB
EMIF (iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF) and MLPB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B) are both Infrastructure Equities funds - EMIF tracks the S&P Emerging Markets Infrastructure Index while MLPB tracks the Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMIF returned 1.66%/yr vs 8.89%/yr for MLPB. Their 0.25 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. EMIF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for MLPB.
Performance
EMIF vs. MLPB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMIF achieves a 0.44% return, which is significantly lower than MLPB's 26.62% return. Over the past 10 years, EMIF has underperformed MLPB with an annualized return of 1.66%, while MLPB has yielded a comparatively higher 8.89% annualized 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%
MLPB
- 1D
- 1.16%
- 1M
- 7.18%
- 6M
- 17.75%
- YTD
- 26.62%
- 1Y
- 25.65%
- 3Y*
- 21.81%
- 5Y*
- 22.18%
- 10Y*
- 8.89%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.52%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $49.09K | $40.45K | $71.84K | |
| $90.23K | $111.55K | $133.00K |
EMIF vs. MLPB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMIF iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF | 0.44% | 33.90% | 1.21% | 5.67% | -12.59% | 3.76% | -19.98% | 16.36% | -13.70% | 20.70% |
MLPB ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B | 26.62% | 7.40% | 25.53% | 22.01% | 30.22% | 39.42% | -30.80% | 5.69% | -8.79% | -9.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMIF and MLPB is -0.02, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.02 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.18 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.25 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2015 | 0.25 |
The correlation between EMIF and MLPB shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (1 year) to 0.26 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
EMIF vs. MLPB — Risk / Return Rank
EMIF
MLPB
EMIF vs. MLPB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF (EMIF) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B (MLPB). 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 | MLPB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.70 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.29 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.00 | 2.56 | -1.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.23 | 6.82 | -4.59 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMIF vs. MLPB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMIF drawdown since its inception was -48.02%, smaller than the maximum MLPB drawdown of -71.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIF and MLPB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMIF | MLPB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.02% | -71.93% | +23.91% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.71% | -9.28% | -6.43% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.70% | -16.49% | -0.21% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.29% | -20.41% | -2.88% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -48.02% | -71.93% | +23.91% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.57% | 0.00% | -13.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.89% | -14.67% | -1.22% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.00% | 3.72% | +3.28% |
Volatility
EMIF vs. MLPB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Emerging Markets Infrastructure ETF (EMIF) is 4.41%, while ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B (MLPB) has a volatility of 4.65%. This indicates that EMIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MLPB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMIF | MLPB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.41% | 4.65% | -0.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.24% | 11.14% | +2.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.21% | 14.17% | +2.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.67% | 19.62% | +0.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.54% | 27.20% | -6.66% |
EMIF vs. MLPB - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMIF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPB's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMIF vs. MLPB - Dividend Comparison
EMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.21%, less than MLPB's 5.70% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
MLPB ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B | 5.70% | 6.51% | 5.95% | 6.37% | 6.00% | 6.98% | 11.93% | 7.98% | 8.11% | 7.23% | 6.85% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMIF and MLPB have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MLPB has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to EMIF (4.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMIF dropped -48.02% vs MLPB's -71.93%.
On 10-year performance, MLPB leads with 8.89% vs 1.66% for EMIF. On fees, EMIF is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MLPB has performed better with a 8.89% return vs 1.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMIF is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for MLPB.
MLPB has the higher dividend yield at 5.70%, compared with 4.21% for EMIF.
EMIF tracks S&P Emerging Markets Infrastructure Index, while MLPB tracks Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMIF and 0.85% for MLPB.
MLPB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 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.
Find the right allocation for EMIF and MLPB
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