INFL vs. ILS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

INFL (Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INFL is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Horizon Kinetics LLC, while ILS is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Brookmont. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, INFL returned 23.41% vs 7.67% for ILS. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. INFL charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.

Performance

INFL vs. ILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INFL achieves a 17.21% return, which is significantly higher than ILS's 1.81% return.

INFL

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: -1.64%
• YTD: 17.21%
• 6M: 17.82%
• 1Y: 23.41%
• 3Y*: 21.83%
• 5Y*: 13.12%
• 10Y*: —

ILS

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 2.12%
• 1Y: 7.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

INFL vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
INFL Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF	17.21%	9.76%
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	1.81%	5.60%

Correlation

The correlation between INFL and ILS is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2025	-0.12

Return for Risk

INFL vs. ILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

INFL

INFL Risk / Return Rank: 45
INFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
INFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
INFL Omega Ratio Rank: 40
INFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
INFL Martin Ratio Rank: 46

ILS

ILS Risk / Return Rank: 93
ILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
ILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
ILS Omega Ratio Rank: 92
ILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
ILS Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

INFL vs. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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.

	INFL	ILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	2.79	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	4.56	-2.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.62	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	13.93	-11.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.68	46.57	-38.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INFL vs. ILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the ILS Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INFL and ILS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	INFL	ILS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.52	2.79	-1.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	1.90	-0.98

Drawdowns

INFL vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INFL drawdown since its inception was -21.30%, which is greater than ILS's maximum drawdown of -1.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INFL and ILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	INFL	ILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.30%	-1.56%	-19.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.36%	-0.55%	-7.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.51%	0.00%	-5.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.10%	-0.25%	-4.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	0.17%	+2.89%

Volatility

INFL vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison

Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF (INFL) has a higher volatility of 3.60% compared to Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) at 0.88%. This indicates that INFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	INFL	ILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.60%	0.88%	+2.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.32%	1.69%	+10.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.52%	2.77%	+12.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.71%	3.38%	+14.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.64%	3.38%	+14.26%

INFL vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

INFL has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

INFL vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison

INFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than ILS's 8.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF	8.09%	6.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
INFL Horizon Kinetics Inflation Beneficiaries ETF	0.91%	1.26%	1.77%	1.60%	1.65%	0.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INFL and ILS in my portfolio?

INFL and ILS have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INFL or ILS?

INFL has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to ILS (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INFL dropped -21.30% vs ILS's -1.56%.

Which ETF is better, INFL or ILS?

On 1-year performance, INFL leads with 23.41% vs 7.67% for ILS. On fees, INFL is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INFL or ILS?

Over the 1-year period, INFL has performed better with a 23.41% return vs 7.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INFL or ILS?

INFL is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, INFL or ILS?

ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.09%, compared with 0.91% for INFL.

What is the main difference between INFL and ILS?

INFL is categorized as Global Equities, while ILS is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Horizon Kinetics LLC and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for INFL and 1.58% for ILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 1.51), 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.