IGF vs. ION

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and ION (Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while ION is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IGF returned 16.28%/yr vs 17.31%/yr for ION. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ION.

Performance

IGF vs. ION - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 9.68% return, which is significantly lower than ION's 13.12% return.

IGF

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 9.68%
• 6M: 10.24%
• 1Y: 17.04%
• 3Y*: 16.28%
• 5Y*: 10.22%
• 10Y*: 8.67%

ION

• 1D: 4.15%
• 1M: -8.49%
• YTD: 13.12%
• 6M: 23.38%
• 1Y: 112.30%
• 3Y*: 17.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IGF vs. ION - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	9.68%	21.31%	14.81%	6.14%	-3.27%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	13.12%	108.37%	-20.02%	-14.10%	-8.45%

Correlation

The correlation between IGF and ION is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022	0.44

The correlation between IGF and ION shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (1 year) to 0.44 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IGF vs. ION - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IGF	ION
Industrials	40.6%	1.7%
Utilities	39.7%	-
Energy	19.6%	2.3%
Real Estate	0.1%	2.3%
Basic Materials	-	13.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	13.0%
Healthcare	-	1.7%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

IGF vs. ION — Risk / Return Rank

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

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 54
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 49
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 53

ION

ION Risk / Return Rank: 84
ION Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
ION Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
ION Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ION Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ION Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

IGF vs. ION - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION). 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	ION	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	2.81	-1.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.22	3.09	-0.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.40	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	4.74	-1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.03	15.01	-6.97

IGF vs. ION - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is lower than the ION Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IGF and ION, 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

IGF vs. ION - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, which is greater than ION's maximum drawdown of -52.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and ION.

Drawdown Indicators

	IGF	ION	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.33%	-52.08%	-6.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.87%	-23.30%	+17.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.28%	-46.47%	+32.19%
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	-2.98%	-14.68%	+11.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.86%	-23.64%	+11.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	7.34%	-5.30%

Volatility

IGF vs. ION - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 3.85%, while Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF (ION) has a volatility of 15.42%. This indicates that IGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ION based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IGF	ION	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.85%	15.42%	-11.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.73%	31.74%	-23.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.58%	39.38%	-28.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.00%	31.51%	-17.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.83%	31.51%	-14.68%

IGF vs. ION - Expense Ratio Comparison

IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than ION's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

IGF vs. ION - Dividend Comparison

IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%, more than ION's 1.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	2.94%	3.23%	3.21%	3.36%	2.67%	2.42%	2.33%	3.27%	3.52%	2.95%	2.98%	3.25%
ION Proshares S&P Global Core Battery Metals ETF	1.41%	1.63%	1.74%	2.23%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IGF and ION in my portfolio?

IGF and ION have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IGF or ION?

ION has higher volatility (15.42%) compared to IGF (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs ION's -52.08%.

Which ETF is better, IGF or ION?

On 3-year performance, ION leads with 17.31% vs 16.28% for IGF. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IGF or ION?

Over the 3-year period, ION has performed better with a 17.31% return vs 16.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IGF or ION?

IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for ION.

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

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 1.41% for ION.

What is the main difference between IGF and ION?

IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while ION is Lithium & Battery Metals. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while ION tracks S&P Global Core Battery Metals Index - Benchmark TR Net. They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.58% for ION.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ION currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 vs 1.55), 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.