KWT vs. NBET

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

KWT (iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF) and NBET (Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KWT is a Financials Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Kuwait Select Size Liquidity Capped Index, while NBET is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman. KWT is passively managed, while NBET is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, KWT returned 9.96%/yr vs 19.86%/yr for NBET. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. KWT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for NBET.

Performance

KWT vs. NBET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF (KWT) and Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KWT achieves a -0.88% return, which is significantly lower than NBET's 20.80% return.

KWT

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: -0.88%
• 6M: -2.41%
• 1Y: 8.71%
• 3Y*: 9.96%
• 5Y*: 8.66%
• 10Y*: —

NBET

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -5.87%
• YTD: 20.80%
• 6M: 20.90%
• 1Y: 23.09%
• 3Y*: 19.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KWT vs. NBET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
KWT iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF	-0.88%	25.38%	11.29%	-4.71%	-11.36%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	20.80%	5.87%	30.30%	7.48%	-6.07%

Correlation

The correlation between KWT and NBET is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.16
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2022	0.23

The correlation between KWT and NBET shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

KWT vs. NBET - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KWT	NBET
Financial Services	66.0%	-
Real Estate	11.3%	-
Industrials	9.5%	2.3%
Communication Services	6.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	0.9%
Consumer Cyclical	1.7%	-
Utilities	0.6%	9.0%
Energy	-	88.7%
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

KWT vs. NBET — Risk / Return Rank

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

KWT

KWT Risk / Return Rank: 19
KWT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
KWT Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
KWT Omega Ratio Rank: 21
KWT Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
KWT Martin Ratio Rank: 17

NBET

NBET Risk / Return Rank: 51
NBET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
NBET Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
NBET Omega Ratio Rank: 44
NBET Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
NBET Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

KWT vs. NBET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF (KWT) and Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET). 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.

	KWT	NBET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	1.59	-0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	2.15	-1.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.26	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	2.90	-2.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.75	7.90	-6.14

KWT vs. NBET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KWT Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the NBET Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KWT and NBET, 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

KWT vs. NBET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KWT drawdown since its inception was -24.37%, which is greater than NBET's maximum drawdown of -18.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KWT and NBET.

Drawdown Indicators

	KWT	NBET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.37%	-18.72%	-5.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.54%	-8.00%	-3.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.72%	-18.72%	+3.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.67%	-6.98%	+1.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.29%	-5.07%	-2.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.97%	2.93%	+2.04%

Volatility

KWT vs. NBET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF (KWT) is 3.49%, while Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) has a volatility of 4.77%. This indicates that KWT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NBET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KWT	NBET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	4.77%	-1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.72%	11.00%	+0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.57%	14.66%	-1.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.65%	19.48%	-5.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	19.48%	-5.56%

KWT vs. NBET - Expense Ratio Comparison

KWT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than NBET's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

KWT vs. NBET - Dividend Comparison

KWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.56%, more than NBET's 1.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KWT iShares MSCI Kuwait ETF	5.56%	5.40%	6.09%	2.25%	5.87%	7.65%	0.27%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	1.71%	2.70%	2.43%	1.22%	0.87%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KWT and NBET in my portfolio?

KWT and NBET have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KWT or NBET?

NBET has higher volatility (4.77%) compared to KWT (3.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KWT dropped -24.37% vs NBET's -18.72%.

Which ETF is better, KWT or NBET?

On 3-year performance, NBET leads with 19.86% vs 9.96% for KWT. On fees, NBET is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, KWT has been the lower-risk option at 3.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KWT or NBET?

Over the 3-year period, NBET has performed better with a 19.86% return vs 9.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KWT or NBET?

NBET is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for KWT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KWT or NBET?

KWT has the higher dividend yield at 5.56%, compared with 1.71% for NBET.

What is the main difference between KWT and NBET?

KWT is categorized as Financials Equities, while NBET is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for KWT and 0.65% for NBET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 0.65), 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.