MLPD vs. IGF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MLPD (Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds - MLPD tracks the Cboe MLPX ATM BuyWrite Index while IGF tracks the S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past year, MLPD returned 11.46% vs 15.64% for IGF. Their 0.49 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. MLPD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

MLPD vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MLPD achieves a 5.77% return, which is significantly lower than IGF's 9.79% return.

MLPD

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: 0.16%
• 6M: 3.31%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 1Y: 11.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.20%

IGF

• 1D: -0.57%
• 1M: -0.66%
• 6M: 5.32%
• YTD: 9.79%
• 1Y: 15.64%
• 3Y*: 16.82%
• 5Y*: 10.96%
• 10Y*: 8.05%
• ALL TIME*: 4.88%

*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)
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	$81.88M	$57.63M	$54.97M
MLPD Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF	$334.42K	$282.21K	$276.41K

MLPD vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MLPD Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF	5.77%	11.77%	9.42%
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	9.79%	21.31%	10.13%

Correlation

The correlation between MLPD and IGF is 0.37, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2024	0.49

The correlation between MLPD and IGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.49 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MLPD vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MLPD	IGF
Financial Services	102.5%	-
Energy	100.0%	20.5%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	36.4%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	40.0%

Return for Risk

MLPD vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MLPD

MLPD Risk / Return Rank: 61
MLPD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
MLPD Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
MLPD Omega Ratio Rank: 61
MLPD Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
MLPD Martin Ratio Rank: 60

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 63
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

MLPD vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.

	MLPD	IGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.47	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	2.13	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.40	2.68	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.46	7.15	+0.31

MLPD vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MLPD Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MLPD and IGF, 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

MLPD vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLPD drawdown since its inception was -12.90%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPD and IGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MLPD	IGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.90%	-58.33%	+45.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.80%	-5.87%	+1.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.31%	—
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	-1.66%	-2.89%	+1.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.11%	-11.79%	+10.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.54%	2.19%	-0.65%

Volatility

MLPD vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF (MLPD) is 1.93%, while iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) has a volatility of 2.28%. This indicates that MLPD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MLPD	IGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.93%	2.28%	-0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.55%	8.92%	-3.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.63%	10.72%	-3.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.17%	13.95%	-2.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.17%	16.71%	-5.54%

MLPD vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MLPD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MLPD vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

MLPD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.77%, more than IGF's 2.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	2.90%	3.23%	3.21%	3.36%	2.67%	2.42%	2.33%	3.27%	3.52%	2.95%	2.98%	3.25%
MLPD Global X MLP & Energy Infrastructure Covered Call ETF	13.77%	13.45%	6.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MLPD and IGF in my portfolio?

MLPD and IGF have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MLPD or IGF?

IGF has higher volatility (2.28%) compared to MLPD (1.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MLPD dropped -12.90% vs IGF's -58.33%.

Which ETF is better, MLPD or IGF?

On 1-year performance, IGF leads with 15.64% vs 11.46% for MLPD. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MLPD has been the lower-risk option at 1.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MLPD or IGF?

Over the 1-year period, IGF has performed better with a 15.64% return vs 11.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MLPD or IGF?

IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for MLPD.

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

MLPD has the higher dividend yield at 13.77%, compared with 2.90% for IGF.

What is the main difference between MLPD and IGF?

MLPD tracks Cboe MLPX ATM BuyWrite Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for MLPD and 0.39% for IGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MLPD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs 1.47), 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.