IGF vs. METL
IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and METL (Sprott Active Metals & Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while METL is a Commodity Producers Equities fund actively managed by Sprott. IGF is passively managed, while METL is actively managed. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for METL.
Performance
IGF vs. METL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 7.07% return, which is significantly lower than METL's 7.51% return.
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%
METL
- 1D
- 0.05%
- 1M
- -9.97%
- YTD
- 7.51%
- 6M
- 15.84%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IGF vs. METL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 7.07% | 3.31% |
METL Sprott Active Metals & Miners ETF | 7.51% | 27.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGF and METL is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2025 | 0.44 |
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. METL — Risk / Return Rank
IGF
METL
IGF vs. METL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and Sprott Active Metals & Miners ETF (METL). 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.
| IGF | METL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.38 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.08 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IGF | METL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.32 | — | — |
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 | 0.23 | 1.18 | -0.94 |
Drawdowns
IGF vs. METL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, which is greater than METL's maximum drawdown of -27.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and METL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IGF | METL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.33% | -27.39% | -30.94% |
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 | -5.29% | -18.48% | +13.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.87% | -8.24% | -3.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.97% | — | — |
Volatility
IGF vs. METL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IGF | METL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.61% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.68% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.56% | 44.85% | -34.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.00% | 44.85% | -30.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.84% | 44.85% | -28.01% |
IGF vs. METL - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than METL's 0.89% expense ratio.
Dividends
IGF vs. METL - Dividend Comparison
IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%, more than METL's 0.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
METL Sprott Active Metals & Miners ETF | 0.92% | 0.99% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IGF and METL have a correlation of 0.44, 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 0.89% for METL.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 0.92% for METL.
IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while METL is Commodity Producers Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Sprott. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.89% for METL.
Find the right allocation for IGF and METL
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