PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EQGB.L vs. IGF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EQGB.L vs. IGF

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQGB.L returned 15.56%/yr vs 10.99%/yr for IGF. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQGB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EQGB.L is traded in GBp, while IGF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IGF values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQGB.L achieves a 15.56% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 8.12% return.

EQGB.L

1D
-0.39%
1M
1.58%
YTD
15.56%
6M
14.80%
1Y
34.98%
3Y*
26.37%
5Y*
15.56%
10Y*
—

IGF

1D
-0.76%
1M
0.21%
YTD
8.12%
6M
8.05%
1Y
15.45%
3Y*
13.17%
5Y*
10.99%
10Y*
8.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		15.56%19.59%26.12%53.92%-35.07%27.68%45.43%41.84%-2.42%5.20%
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		8.12%12.66%16.82%0.84%10.49%12.63%-9.24%21.04%-4.61%-1.65%

Correlation

The correlation between EQGB.L and IGF is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.03

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.02

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.07

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2017

0.15

The correlation between EQGB.L and IGF shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EQGB.L
IGF

Technology

53.6%

-

Communication Services

15.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%

-

Consumer Defensive

7.7%

-

Healthcare

4.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%
38.8%

Utilities

1.4%
41.1%

Basic Materials

1.1%

-

Energy

0.6%
20.1%

Financial Services

0.2%

-

Real Estate

0.1%
0.1%

Technology

EQGB.L
53.6%
IGF

-

Communication Services

EQGB.L
15.8%
IGF

-

Consumer Cyclical

EQGB.L
12.2%
IGF

-

Consumer Defensive

EQGB.L
7.7%
IGF

-

Healthcare

EQGB.L
4.2%
IGF

-

Industrials

EQGB.L
3.1%
IGF
38.8%

Utilities

EQGB.L
1.4%
IGF
41.1%

Basic Materials

EQGB.L
1.1%
IGF

-

Energy

EQGB.L
0.6%
IGF
20.1%

Financial Services

EQGB.L
0.2%
IGF

-

Real Estate

EQGB.L
0.1%
IGF
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc

iShares Global Infrastructure ETF

Often compared with EQGB.L:
EQGB.L vs. EQQQ.LEQGB.L vs. CNX1.LEQGB.L vs. VWRP.LEQGB.L vs. QQQEQGB.L vs. XNAQ.LEQGB.L vs. WLDS.LEQGB.L vs. INTL.L
Often compared with IGF:
IGF vs. IFRAIGF vs. GIIIGF vs. NFRAIGF vs. SPYIGF vs. GLIFXIGF vs. VPUIGF vs. XLU

Return for Risk

EQGB.L vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EQGB.L
EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
IGF
IGF Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.

EQGB.LIGFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.18
1.62

+0.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.03
2.29

+0.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.28

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.07

3.05

+0.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.97

7.95

+3.03

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is higher than the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQGB.L and IGF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

EQGB.LIGFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

1.62

+0.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

0.91

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.56

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

0.39

+0.54

Drawdowns

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQGB.L drawdown since its inception was -36.77%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -40.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQGB.L and IGF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EQGB.LIGFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.77%

-40.37%

+3.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.33%

-5.10%

-6.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.76%

-11.18%

-11.58%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.77%

-17.01%

-19.76%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-35.17%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.57%

-4.33%

+0.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.45%

-7.58%

+0.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.18%

1.96%

+1.22%

Volatility

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) has a higher volatility of 5.45% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.40%. This indicates that EQGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EQGB.LIGFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.45%

3.40%

+2.05%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.15%

7.71%

+4.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.02%

9.61%

+6.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.98%

12.11%

+8.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.24%

15.99%

+5.25%

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQGB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQGB.L vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

EQGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%4.16%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		3.01%3.23%3.21%3.36%2.67%2.42%2.33%3.27%3.52%2.95%2.98%3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

EQGB.L and IGF have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EQGB.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EQGB.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.

EQGB.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while IGF is Industrials Equities. EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQGB.L and 0.39% for IGF.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EQGB.L and IGF

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