MOAT vs. IGF
MOAT (VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MOAT is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MOAT returned 13.35%/yr vs 8.53%/yr for IGF. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MOAT charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.
Performance
MOAT vs. IGF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MOAT achieves a -1.06% return, which is significantly lower than IGF's 8.95% return. Over the past 10 years, MOAT has outperformed IGF with an annualized return of 13.35%, while IGF has yielded a comparatively lower 8.53% annualized return.
MOAT
- 1D
- 1.16%
- 1M
- 2.54%
- YTD
- -1.06%
- 6M
- -2.38%
- 1Y
- 12.21%
- 3Y*
- 10.67%
- 5Y*
- 7.69%
- 10Y*
- 13.35%
IGF
- 1D
- 1.21%
- 1M
- -0.77%
- YTD
- 8.95%
- 6M
- 9.24%
- 1Y
- 16.47%
- 3Y*
- 16.15%
- 5Y*
- 10.07%
- 10Y*
- 8.53%
MOAT vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOAT VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF | -1.06% | 13.20% | 10.73% | 31.89% | -13.66% | 24.12% | 14.84% | 34.79% | -1.28% | 23.18% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 8.95% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 6.14% | -1.26% | 11.57% | -6.50% | 25.82% | -9.95% | 19.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between MOAT and IGF is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 25, 2012 | 0.66 |
Over the past year, the correlation between MOAT and IGF has dropped to 0.36 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
MOAT vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MOAT
IGF
Technology
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
Consumer Cyclical
-
Financial Services
-
Communication Services
-
Real Estate
Basic Materials
-
-
Energy
-
Utilities
-
Technology
MOAT
IGF
-
Consumer Defensive
MOAT
IGF
-
Healthcare
MOAT
IGF
-
Industrials
MOAT
IGF
Consumer Cyclical
MOAT
IGF
-
Financial Services
MOAT
IGF
-
Communication Services
MOAT
IGF
-
Real Estate
MOAT
IGF
Basic Materials
MOAT
-
IGF
-
Energy
MOAT
-
IGF
Utilities
MOAT
-
IGF
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
MOAT vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank
MOAT
IGF
MOAT vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) 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.
| MOAT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.69 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.28 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.99 | 2.82 | -1.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.02 | 8.14 | -5.12 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MOAT vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MOAT drawdown since its inception was -33.31%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOAT and IGF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MOAT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.31% | -58.33% | +25.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.43% | -5.87% | -6.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.44% | -14.28% | -7.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.96% | -20.83% | -3.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.31% | -42.11% | +8.80% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.84% | -3.63% | -1.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.83% | -11.86% | +8.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.05% | 2.03% | +2.02% |
Volatility
MOAT vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) has a higher volatility of 4.16% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.81%. This indicates that MOAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MOAT | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.16% | 3.81% | +0.35% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.04% | 8.71% | +1.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.94% | 10.57% | +3.37% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.21% | 14.00% | +4.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.69% | 16.83% | +1.86% |
MOAT vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison
MOAT has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
MOAT vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison
MOAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, less than IGF's 2.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 2.96% | 3.23% | 3.21% | 3.36% | 2.67% | 2.42% | 2.33% | 3.27% | 3.52% | 2.95% | 2.98% | 3.25% |
MOAT VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF | 1.37% | 1.36% | 1.37% | 0.86% | 1.25% | 1.08% | 1.46% | 1.31% | 1.79% | 1.07% | 1.17% | 2.13% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MOAT and IGF have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MOAT has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to IGF (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOAT dropped -33.31% vs IGF's -58.33%.
On 10-year performance, MOAT leads with 13.35% vs 8.53% for IGF. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MOAT has performed better with a 13.35% return vs 8.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IGF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for MOAT.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 1.37% for MOAT.
MOAT is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IGF is Industrials Equities. MOAT tracks Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for MOAT and 0.39% for IGF.
IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 0.88), 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 MOAT and IGF
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