IGF vs. NLR
IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and NLR (VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while NLR is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IGF returned 8.26%/yr vs 12.72%/yr for NLR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for NLR.
Performance
IGF vs. NLR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 7.07% return, which is significantly higher than NLR's -0.79% return. Over the past 10 years, IGF has underperformed NLR with an annualized return of 8.26%, while NLR has yielded a comparatively higher 12.72% annualized 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%
NLR
- 1D
- 0.91%
- 1M
- -12.54%
- YTD
- -0.79%
- 6M
- -6.08%
- 1Y
- 26.72%
- 3Y*
- 31.16%
- 5Y*
- 20.16%
- 10Y*
- 12.72%
IGF vs. NLR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 7.07% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 6.14% | -1.26% | 11.57% | -6.50% | 25.82% | -9.95% | 19.31% |
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | -0.79% | 56.50% | 14.26% | 36.67% | 2.29% | 13.63% | 3.49% | 0.20% | 4.94% | 8.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGF and NLR is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.60 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2007 | 0.66 |
Over the past year, the correlation between IGF and NLR has dropped to 0.35 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
IGF vs. NLR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IGF
NLR
Utilities
Industrials
Energy
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
IGF
NLR
Industrials
IGF
NLR
Energy
IGF
NLR
Real Estate
IGF
NLR
-
Basic Materials
IGF
-
NLR
-
Communication Services
IGF
-
NLR
-
Consumer Cyclical
IGF
-
NLR
-
Consumer Defensive
IGF
-
NLR
-
Financial Services
IGF
-
NLR
-
Healthcare
IGF
-
NLR
-
Technology
IGF
-
NLR
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. NLR — Risk / Return Rank
IGF
NLR
IGF vs. NLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR). 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 | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.70 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.13 | +0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.38 | 1.04 | +1.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.08 | 2.08 | +5.00 |
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 | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.32 | 0.63 | +0.70 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 | 0.69 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.49 | 0.53 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.23 | 0.16 | +0.07 |
Drawdowns
IGF vs. NLR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, smaller than the maximum NLR drawdown of -65.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and NLR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IGF | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.33% | -65.05% | +6.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.87% | -25.80% | +19.93% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.28% | -30.48% | +16.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.83% | -30.48% | +9.65% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.11% | -34.35% | -7.76% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.29% | -25.03% | +19.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.87% | -35.71% | +23.84% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.97% | 12.87% | -10.90% |
Volatility
IGF vs. NLR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 3.61%, while VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF (NLR) has a volatility of 13.36%. This indicates that IGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IGF | NLR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.61% | 13.36% | -9.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.68% | 33.24% | -24.56% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.56% | 42.96% | -32.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.00% | 29.43% | -15.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.84% | 24.14% | -7.30% |
IGF vs. NLR - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than NLR's 0.56% expense ratio.
Dividends
IGF vs. NLR - Dividend Comparison
IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.01%, more than NLR's 2.57% 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% |
NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF | 2.57% | 2.55% | 0.76% | 4.54% | 2.02% | 1.99% | 2.23% | 2.21% | 3.91% | 4.86% | 3.62% | 3.30% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IGF and NLR have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NLR has higher volatility (13.36%) compared to IGF (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs NLR's -65.05%.
On 10-year performance, NLR leads with 12.72% vs 8.26% for IGF. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% 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.
Over the 10-year period, NLR has performed better with a 12.72% return vs 8.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for NLR.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 3.01%, compared with 2.57% for NLR.
IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while NLR is Alternative Energy Equities. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while NLR tracks MVIS Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.56% for NLR.
IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.63), 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.
Find the right allocation for IGF and NLR
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