IGF vs. BILT
IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and BILT (iShares Infrastructure Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while BILT is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by iShares. IGF is passively managed, while BILT is actively managed. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for BILT.
Performance
IGF vs. BILT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 9.67% return, which is significantly lower than BILT's 13.47% return.
IGF
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -0.16%
- YTD
- 9.67%
- 6M
- 8.98%
- 1Y
- 17.62%
- 3Y*
- 16.78%
- 5Y*
- 10.70%
- 10Y*
- 8.79%
BILT
- 1D
- 0.43%
- 1M
- -0.78%
- YTD
- 13.47%
- 6M
- 13.63%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IGF vs. BILT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.67% | 5.40% |
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF | 13.47% | 4.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGF and BILT is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2025 | 0.80 |
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
IGF vs. BILT — Risk / Return Rank
IGF
BILT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IGF vs. BILT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and iShares Infrastructure Active ETF (BILT). 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.
| IGF | BILT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.02 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.52 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IGF vs. BILT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, which is greater than BILT's maximum drawdown of -5.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and BILT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IGF | BILT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.33% | -5.38% | -52.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.87% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.83% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.11% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.99% | -1.42% | -1.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.84% | -1.44% | -10.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.07% | — | — |
Volatility
IGF vs. BILT - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IGF | BILT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.35% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.73% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.56% | 10.28% | +0.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.96% | 10.28% | +3.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.73% | 10.28% | +6.45% |
IGF vs. BILT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BILT's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
IGF vs. BILT - Dividend Comparison
IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.91%, less than BILT's 5.74% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BILT iShares Infrastructure Active ETF | 5.74% | 0.99% | 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 | 2.91% | 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
IGF and BILT have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BILT.
BILT has the higher dividend yield at 5.74%, compared with 2.91% for IGF.
IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while BILT is Utilities Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.60% for BILT.
Find the right allocation for IGF and BILT
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