IGF vs. XLB
IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and XLB (Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while XLB is a Materials fund tracking the Materials Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IGF returned 8.67%/yr vs 10.54%/yr for XLB. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for XLB.
Performance
IGF vs. XLB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 9.68% return, which is significantly lower than XLB's 15.57% return. Over the past 10 years, IGF has underperformed XLB with an annualized return of 8.67%, while XLB has yielded a comparatively higher 10.54% annualized return.
IGF
- 1D
- 0.67%
- 1M
- 0.31%
- YTD
- 9.68%
- 6M
- 10.24%
- 1Y
- 16.24%
- 3Y*
- 16.28%
- 5Y*
- 10.22%
- 10Y*
- 8.67%
XLB
- 1D
- 1.87%
- 1M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 15.57%
- 6M
- 16.68%
- 1Y
- 20.35%
- 3Y*
- 10.88%
- 5Y*
- 6.01%
- 10Y*
- 10.54%
IGF vs. XLB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.68% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 6.14% | -1.26% | 11.57% | -6.50% | 25.82% | -9.95% | 19.31% |
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF | 15.57% | 9.94% | 0.15% | 12.46% | -12.30% | 27.44% | 20.46% | 24.13% | -14.88% | 24.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGF and XLB is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2007 | 0.70 |
The correlation between IGF and XLB shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.70 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
IGF vs. XLB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IGF
XLB
Utilities
-
Industrials
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
IGF
XLB
-
Industrials
IGF
XLB
Energy
IGF
XLB
-
Real Estate
IGF
XLB
-
Basic Materials
IGF
-
XLB
Communication Services
IGF
-
XLB
-
Consumer Cyclical
IGF
-
XLB
Consumer Defensive
IGF
-
XLB
-
Financial Services
IGF
-
XLB
-
Healthcare
IGF
-
XLB
-
Technology
IGF
-
XLB
-
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. XLB — Risk / Return Rank
IGF
XLB
IGF vs. XLB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB). 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 | XLB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.20 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.78 | 1.65 | +1.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.03 | 5.05 | +2.98 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IGF vs. XLB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, roughly equal to the maximum XLB drawdown of -59.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and XLB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IGF | XLB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.33% | -59.83% | +1.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.87% | -12.38% | +6.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.28% | -23.17% | +8.89% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.83% | -24.72% | +3.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.11% | -37.27% | -4.84% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.98% | -2.25% | -0.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.86% | -10.83% | -1.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.04% | 4.04% | -2.00% |
Volatility
IGF vs. XLB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 3.85%, while Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB) has a volatility of 7.05%. This indicates that IGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IGF | XLB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.85% | 7.05% | -3.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.73% | 13.58% | -4.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.58% | 17.49% | -6.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.00% | 19.06% | -5.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.83% | 20.70% | -3.87% |
IGF vs. XLB - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than XLB's 0.13% expense ratio.
Dividends
IGF vs. XLB - Dividend Comparison
IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%, more than XLB's 1.68% 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% |
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF | 1.68% | 1.92% | 1.92% | 2.00% | 2.26% | 1.62% | 1.72% | 1.98% | 2.20% | 1.66% | 1.95% | 2.24% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IGF and XLB have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XLB has higher volatility (7.05%) compared to IGF (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs XLB's -59.83%.
On 10-year performance, XLB leads with 10.54% vs 8.67% for IGF. On fees, XLB is cheaper at 0.13% 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.
Over the 10-year period, XLB has performed better with a 10.54% return vs 8.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XLB is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 1.68% for XLB.
IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while XLB is Materials. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while XLB tracks Materials Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.13% for XLB.
IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.17), 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 XLB
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