IPAV vs. USNG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

IPAV (Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF) and USNG (Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. IPAV is passively managed, while USNG is actively managed. Over the past year, IPAV returned 18.18% vs 32.07% for USNG. Their 0.27 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IPAV charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for USNG.

Performance

IPAV vs. USNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) and Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAV achieves a 6.95% return, which is significantly lower than USNG's 25.43% return.

IPAV

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -1.47%
• 6M: 0.92%
• YTD: 6.95%
• 1Y: 18.18%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.28%

USNG

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: -3.22%
• 6M: 12.87%
• YTD: 25.43%
• 1Y: 32.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.38%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IPAV Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF	$22.25K	$22.11K	$47.05K
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	$437.77K	$274.58K	$158.86K

IPAV vs. USNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IPAV Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF	6.95%	12.92%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	25.43%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAV and USNG is 0.30, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2025	0.27

IPAV vs. USNG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAV	USNG
Industrials	48.8%	7.7%
Basic Materials	43.7%	1.5%
Real Estate	3.0%	-
Communication Services	2.3%	-
Energy	1.2%	80.9%
Utilities	0.8%	5.2%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	-
Technology	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	4.7%
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

IPAV vs. USNG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IPAV

IPAV Risk / Return Rank: 37
IPAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
IPAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
IPAV Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IPAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
IPAV Martin Ratio Rank: 34

USNG

USNG Risk / Return Rank: 76
USNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
USNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
USNG Omega Ratio Rank: 72
USNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
USNG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IPAV vs. USNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) and Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG). 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.

	IPAV	USNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.79	-0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	2.51	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.30	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.21	2.62	-1.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.32	10.67	-7.35

IPAV vs. USNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAV Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the USNG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAV and USNG, 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

IPAV vs. USNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAV drawdown since its inception was -14.59%, which is greater than USNG's maximum drawdown of -11.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAV and USNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAV	USNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.59%	-11.93%	-2.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.59%	-11.93%	-2.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.75%	-8.47%	-2.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.97%	-1.85%	-2.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.32%	2.93%	+2.39%

Volatility

IPAV vs. USNG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF (IPAV) is 5.18%, while Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF (USNG) has a volatility of 6.49%. This indicates that IPAV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAV	USNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	6.49%	-1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.26%	13.82%	+2.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.16%	17.46%	+0.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.95%	17.29%	+0.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.95%	17.29%	+0.66%

IPAV vs. USNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAV has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than USNG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

IPAV vs. USNG - Dividend Comparison

IPAV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, less than USNG's 1.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
IPAV Global X Infrastructure Development ex-U.S. ETF	1.52%	1.29%	0.31%
USNG Amplify Samsung U.S. Natural Gas Infrastructure ETF	1.54%	1.10%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IPAV and USNG in my portfolio?

IPAV and USNG have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IPAV or USNG?

USNG has higher volatility (6.49%) compared to IPAV (5.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAV dropped -14.59% vs USNG's -11.93%.

Which ETF is better, IPAV or USNG?

On 1-year performance, USNG leads with 32.07% vs 18.18% for IPAV. On fees, IPAV is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, IPAV has been the lower-risk option at 5.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAV or USNG?

Over the 1-year period, USNG has performed better with a 32.07% return vs 18.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAV or USNG?

IPAV is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for USNG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IPAV or USNG?

USNG has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 1.52% for IPAV.

What is the main difference between IPAV and USNG?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for IPAV and 0.59% for USNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USNG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 0.97), 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.