IGF vs. SUPL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and SUPL (ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF) are both Industrials Equities funds - IGF tracks the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net) while SUPL tracks the FactSet Supply Chain Logistics Index - Benchmark TR Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IGF returned 16.78%/yr vs 10.39%/yr for SUPL. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for SUPL.

Performance

IGF vs. SUPL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF (SUPL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 9.67% return, which is significantly lower than SUPL's 13.92% 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%

SUPL

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 13.92%
• 6M: 13.11%
• 1Y: 23.18%
• 3Y*: 10.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IGF vs. SUPL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	9.67%	21.31%	14.81%	6.14%	-8.22%
SUPL ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF	13.92%	9.25%	-2.44%	23.69%	-11.01%

Correlation

The correlation between IGF and SUPL is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2022	0.58

The correlation between IGF and SUPL shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.58 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IGF vs. SUPL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IGF	SUPL
Industrials	40.6%	60.0%
Utilities	39.7%	3.2%
Energy	19.6%	4.5%
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	3.2%
Technology	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

IGF vs. SUPL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IGF

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

SUPL

SUPL Risk / Return Rank: 45
SUPL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
SUPL Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
SUPL Omega Ratio Rank: 41
SUPL Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
SUPL Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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. SUPL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF (SUPL). 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	SUPL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	1.41	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	1.96	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.25	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	2.39	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.52	7.41	+1.11

IGF vs. SUPL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is comparable to the SUPL Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IGF and SUPL, 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. SUPL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, which is greater than SUPL's maximum drawdown of -24.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and SUPL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IGF	SUPL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.33%	-24.42%	-33.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.87%	-9.76%	+3.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.28%	-21.71%	+7.43%
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	-2.99%	-5.73%	+2.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.84%	-5.91%	-5.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	3.14%	-1.07%

Volatility

IGF vs. SUPL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 3.35%, while ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF (SUPL) has a volatility of 5.62%. This indicates that IGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SUPL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IGF	SUPL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.35%	5.62%	-2.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.73%	13.49%	-4.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.56%	16.59%	-6.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.96%	19.00%	-5.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.73%	19.00%	-2.27%

IGF vs. SUPL - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IGF vs. SUPL - Dividend Comparison

IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.91%, more than SUPL's 2.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
SUPL ProShares Supply Chain Logistics ETF	2.75%	3.03%	4.78%	4.71%	3.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IGF and SUPL in my portfolio?

IGF and SUPL have a correlation of 0.43, 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 SUPL?

SUPL has higher volatility (5.62%) compared to IGF (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs SUPL's -24.42%.

Which ETF is better, IGF or SUPL?

On 3-year performance, IGF leads with 16.78% vs 10.39% for SUPL. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IGF or SUPL?

Over the 3-year period, IGF has performed better with a 16.78% return vs 10.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IGF or SUPL?

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

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

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.91%, compared with 2.75% for SUPL.

What is the main difference between IGF and SUPL?

IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net), while SUPL tracks FactSet Supply Chain Logistics 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 SUPL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs 1.41), 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.