IAUM vs. IGF

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IAUM (iShares Gold Trust Micro) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAUM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IAUM returned 30.12%/yr vs 15.43%/yr for IGF. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAUM charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

IAUM vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAUM achieves a 0.28% return, which is significantly lower than IGF's 7.07% return.

IAUM

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: -8.41%
• YTD: 0.28%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 30.56%
• 3Y*: 30.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IGF

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: -1.91%
• YTD: 7.07%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 13.89%
• 3Y*: 15.43%
• 5Y*: 9.75%
• 10Y*: 8.26%

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

IAUM vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IAUM iShares Gold Trust Micro	0.28%	64.27%	27.04%	13.12%	-0.49%	3.87%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	7.07%	21.31%	14.81%	6.14%	-1.26%	5.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IAUM and IGF is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2021	0.31

IAUM vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IAUM	IGF
Real Estate	100.0%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	20.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	38.8%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	41.1%

Return for Risk

IAUM vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAUM

IAUM Risk / Return Rank: 34
IAUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
IAUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
IAUM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IAUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
IAUM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 45
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

IAUM vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) 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.

	IAUM	IGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.32	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	1.91	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.23	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	2.38	-0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.84	7.08	-3.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IAUM vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAUM Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAUM 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IAUM	IGF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	1.32	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.11	0.23	+0.88

Drawdowns

IAUM vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAUM drawdown since its inception was -20.87%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAUM and IGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAUM	IGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.87%	-58.33%	+37.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.02%	-5.87%	-14.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.02%	-14.28%	-5.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.83%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.85%	-5.29%	-14.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.33%	-11.87%	+6.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.98%	1.97%	+6.01%

Volatility

IAUM vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) has a higher volatility of 5.64% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.61%. This indicates that IAUM'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.

Volatility by Period

	IAUM	IGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.64%	3.61%	+2.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.20%	8.68%	+14.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.57%	10.56%	+16.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.92%	14.00%	+3.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.92%	16.84%	+1.08%

IAUM vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAUM has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAUM vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IAUM iShares Gold Trust Micro	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both IAUM and IGF in my portfolio?

IAUM and IGF 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, IAUM or IGF?

IAUM has higher volatility (5.64%) compared to IGF (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAUM dropped -20.87% vs IGF's -58.33%.

Which ETF is better, IAUM or IGF?

On 3-year performance, IAUM leads with 30.12% vs 15.43% for IGF. On fees, IAUM is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IAUM or IGF?

Over the 3-year period, IAUM has performed better with a 30.12% return vs 15.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IAUM or IGF?

IAUM is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IAUM or IGF?

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 0.00% for IAUM.

What is the main difference between IAUM and IGF?

IAUM is categorized as Gold, while IGF is Industrials Equities. IAUM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IAUM and 0.39% for IGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 1.16), 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.