PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IFRA vs. QLC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IFRA vs. QLC

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

IFRA (iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - IFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index, while QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IFRA returned 13.63%/yr vs 15.50%/yr for QLC. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IFRA charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.

Performance

IFRA vs. QLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFRA achieves a 19.01% return, which is significantly higher than QLC's 11.97% return.

IFRA

1D
0.44%
1M
2.86%
YTD
19.01%
6M
17.73%
1Y
31.64%
3Y*
19.65%
5Y*
13.63%
10Y*
—

QLC

1D
1.63%
1M
3.02%
YTD
11.97%
6M
12.35%
1Y
33.81%
3Y*
24.25%
5Y*
15.50%
10Y*
15.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IFRA vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IFRA
iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF		19.01%15.90%17.02%13.42%-3.32%29.81%7.37%27.00%-7.97%
QLC
FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund		11.97%23.26%26.71%26.02%-17.21%28.46%13.64%24.51%-8.19%

Correlation

The correlation between IFRA and QLC is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.59

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

0.65

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

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2018

0.71

The correlation between IFRA and QLC shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.72 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IFRA vs. QLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IFRA
QLC

Industrials

39.4%
6.3%

Utilities

37.7%
3.1%

Basic Materials

14.7%
2.0%

Energy

7.9%
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

0.0%
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

0.0%
3.0%

Communication Services

-

13.0%

Financial Services

-

13.2%

Healthcare

-

9.6%

Real Estate

-

2.1%

Technology

-

37.8%

Industrials

IFRA
39.4%
QLC
6.3%

Utilities

IFRA
37.7%
QLC
3.1%

Basic Materials

IFRA
14.7%
QLC
2.0%

Energy

IFRA
7.9%
QLC
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IFRA
0.0%
QLC
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

IFRA
0.0%
QLC
3.0%

Communication Services

IFRA

-

QLC
13.0%

Financial Services

IFRA

-

QLC
13.2%

Healthcare

IFRA

-

QLC
9.6%

Real Estate

IFRA

-

QLC
2.1%

Technology

IFRA

-

QLC
37.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF

FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund

Often compared with IFRA:
IFRA vs. PAVEIFRA vs. IGFIFRA vs. NFRAIFRA vs. GIIIFRA vs. VOOIFRA vs. FNDAIFRA vs. IYH
Often compared with QLC:
QLC vs. VOOQLC vs. QQQMQLC vs. SPHQQLC vs. BDGSQLC vs. ESMVQLC vs. JQUAQLC vs. AUSF

Return for Risk

IFRA vs. QLC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IFRA
IFRA Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
IFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
IFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
IFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
IFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
QLC
QLC Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
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.

IFRA vs. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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.

IFRAQLCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.11
2.64

-0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.07
3.58

-0.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.47

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.78

3.84

-0.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.85

17.56

-3.70

IFRA vs. QLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFRA Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the QLC Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFRA and QLC, 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...

Drawdowns

IFRA vs. QLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFRA drawdown since its inception was -41.06%, which is greater than QLC's maximum drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFRA and QLC.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IFRAQLCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.06%

-35.86%

-5.20%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.40%

-8.84%

+0.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.93%

-18.49%

-1.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.93%

-23.81%

+3.88%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-35.86%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.87%

-0.22%

-0.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.13%

-4.53%

-0.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.29%

1.93%

+0.36%

Volatility

IFRA vs. QLC - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) at 4.70%. This indicates that IFRA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IFRAQLCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.33%

4.70%

+0.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.64%

10.29%

+1.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.11%

12.90%

+2.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.98%

16.92%

+1.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.37%

18.46%

+2.91%

IFRA vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFRA has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than QLC's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFRA vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison

IFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.86%, more than QLC's 0.87% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IFRA
iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF		1.86%1.84%1.75%1.98%1.98%1.63%2.08%1.68%2.50%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QLC
FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund		0.87%0.94%1.03%1.26%1.46%0.96%1.40%1.91%1.82%1.29%1.80%0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

IFRA and QLC have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IFRA has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to QLC (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IFRA dropped -41.06% vs QLC's -35.86%.

On 5-year performance, QLC leads with 15.50% vs 13.63% for IFRA. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QLC has performed better with a 15.50% return vs 13.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for IFRA.

IFRA has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 0.87% for QLC.

IFRA is categorized as Industrials Equities, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. IFRA tracks NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index, while QLC tracks Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Northern Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IFRA and 0.25% for QLC.

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.11), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IFRA and QLC

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