FGIAX vs. ICBMX

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FGIAX (Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A) and ICBMX (ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, FGIAX returned 8.24%/yr vs 13.01%/yr for ICBMX. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FGIAX charges 1.21%/yr vs 1.31%/yr for ICBMX.

Performance

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (FGIAX) and ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund (ICBMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGIAX achieves a 11.78% return, which is significantly lower than ICBMX's 20.46% return. Over the past 10 years, FGIAX has underperformed ICBMX with an annualized return of 8.24%, while ICBMX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.01% annualized return.

FGIAX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -1.91%
• 6M: 7.25%
• YTD: 11.78%
• 1Y: 15.52%
• 3Y*: 14.42%
• 5Y*: 9.59%
• 10Y*: 8.24%
• ALL TIME*: 6.95%

ICBMX

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 2.54%
• 6M: 9.12%
• YTD: 20.46%
• 1Y: 39.51%
• 3Y*: 18.65%
• 5Y*: 15.28%
• 10Y*: 13.01%
• ALL TIME*: 7.00%

*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)
FGIAX Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
ICBMX ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FGIAX Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A	11.78%	17.73%	10.70%	8.51%	-6.23%	14.51%	-2.76%	29.32%	-7.91%	19.40%
ICBMX ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund	20.46%	15.95%	21.25%	11.02%	0.50%	30.63%	5.53%	22.11%	-17.38%	16.93%

Correlation

The correlation between FGIAX and ICBMX is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.63
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2007	0.69

Over the past year, the correlation between FGIAX and ICBMX has dropped to 0.46 - well below their long-term average of 0.69, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

FGIAX vs. ICBMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGIAX

FGIAX Risk / Return Rank: 58
FGIAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
FGIAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FGIAX Omega Ratio Rank: 49
FGIAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FGIAX Martin Ratio Rank: 58

ICBMX

ICBMX Risk / Return Rank: 80
ICBMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
ICBMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ICBMX Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ICBMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
ICBMX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (FGIAX) and ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund (ICBMX). 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.

	FGIAX	ICBMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	1.82	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.69	-0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.31	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	3.57	-0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.18	12.44	-4.26

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGIAX Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is comparable to the ICBMX Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGIAX and ICBMX, 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

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGIAX drawdown since its inception was -49.35%, smaller than the maximum ICBMX drawdown of -63.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGIAX and ICBMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGIAX	ICBMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.35%	-63.92%	+14.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.04%	-10.10%	+4.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.68%	-26.49%	+16.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.08%	-26.49%	+5.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.02%	-48.18%	+10.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.72%	-1.54%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.13%	-17.79%	+10.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.95%	2.90%	-0.95%

Volatility

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A (FGIAX) is 3.16%, while ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund (ICBMX) has a volatility of 3.51%. This indicates that FGIAX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ICBMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGIAX	ICBMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	3.51%	-0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.06%	12.95%	-3.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.69%	19.77%	-9.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.24%	20.60%	-7.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.16%	22.23%	-7.07%

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGIAX has a 1.21% expense ratio, which is lower than ICBMX's 1.31% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGIAX vs. ICBMX - Dividend Comparison

FGIAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.27%, more than ICBMX's 8.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FGIAX Nuveen Global Infrastructure Fund Class A	14.27%	9.99%	7.46%	2.27%	6.11%	7.20%	1.38%	7.06%	6.32%	5.83%	8.23%	3.05%
ICBMX ICON Natural Resources and Infrastructure Fund	8.31%	10.01%	17.24%	7.07%	11.07%	1.32%	0.32%	1.55%	21.58%	1.19%	0.53%	7.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGIAX and ICBMX in my portfolio?

FGIAX and ICBMX 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, FGIAX or ICBMX?

ICBMX has higher volatility (3.51%) compared to FGIAX (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FGIAX dropped -49.35% vs ICBMX's -63.92%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ICBMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.50), 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.