PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
NBET vs. IGF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

NBET vs. IGF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

NBET (Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. NBET is actively managed, while IGF is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NBET returned 19.60%/yr vs 16.16%/yr for IGF. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. NBET charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.

Performance

NBET vs. IGF - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBET achieves a 24.97% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 10.41% return.

NBET

1D
0.93%
1M
3.95%
6M
14.68%
YTD
24.97%
1Y
27.68%
3Y*
19.60%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
13.70%

IGF

1D
-0.28%
1M
-0.09%
6M
5.19%
YTD
10.41%
1Y
16.30%
3Y*
16.16%
5Y*
11.05%
10Y*
8.14%
ALL TIME*
4.91%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IGF

iShares Global Infrastructure ETF
$38.15M$37.64M$47.97M

NBET

Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF
$197.04K$221.77K$179.90K

NBET vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
NBET
Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF		24.97%5.87%30.30%7.48%-6.07%
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		10.41%21.31%14.81%6.14%-8.22%

Correlation

The correlation between NBET and IGF is 0.38, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.38

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2022

0.69

Over the past year, the correlation between NBET and IGF has dropped to 0.38 - well below their long-term average of 0.69, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

NBET vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
NBET
IGF

Energy

88.9%
20.5%

Utilities

8.6%
40.0%

Industrials

2.6%
36.4%

Basic Materials

0.9%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

-

Energy

NBET
88.9%
IGF
20.5%

Utilities

NBET
8.6%
IGF
40.0%

Industrials

NBET
2.6%
IGF
36.4%

Basic Materials

NBET
0.9%
IGF

-

Communication Services

NBET

-

IGF

-

Consumer Cyclical

NBET

-

IGF

-

Consumer Defensive

NBET

-

IGF

-

Financial Services

NBET

-

IGF

-

Healthcare

NBET

-

IGF

-

Real Estate

NBET

-

IGF
0.1%

Technology

NBET

-

IGF

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF

iShares Global Infrastructure ETF

Often compared with NBET:
NBET vs. XLEINBET vs. NBOSNBET vs. NEMDNBET vs. LNGXNBET vs. NBSDNBET vs. WEEINBET vs. JAPN
Often compared with IGF:
IGF vs. IFRAIGF vs. GIIIGF vs. NFRAIGF vs. SPYIGF vs. GLIFXIGF vs. VPUIGF vs. XLU

Return for Risk

NBET vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
NBET
NBET Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
NBET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NBET Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
NBET Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
NBET Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
NBET Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
IGF
IGF Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NBET vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

NBETIGFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.77
1.55

+0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.40
2.25

+0.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.28

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.30

2.83

+0.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.03

7.59

+0.44

NBET vs. IGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBET Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the IGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBET 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

NBET vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBET drawdown since its inception was -18.72%, smaller than the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBET and IGF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

NBETIGFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.72%

-58.33%

+39.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.00%

-5.87%

-2.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.38%

-11.31%

-6.07%

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

-3.76%

-2.34%

-1.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.06%

-11.79%

+6.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.30%

2.19%

+1.11%

Volatility

NBET vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) has a higher volatility of 5.11% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 2.75%. This indicates that NBET'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

NBETIGFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.11%

2.75%

+2.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.79%

8.92%

+2.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.92%

10.69%

+4.23%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.43%

13.95%

+5.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.43%

16.71%

+2.72%

NBET vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBET has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBET vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison

NBET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.41%, less than IGF's 2.89% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IGF
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF		2.89%3.23%3.21%3.36%2.67%2.42%2.33%3.27%3.52%2.95%2.98%3.25%
NBET
Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF		2.41%2.70%2.43%1.22%0.87%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

NBET and IGF have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NBET has higher volatility (5.11%) compared to IGF (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBET dropped -18.72% vs IGF's -58.33%.

On 3-year performance, NBET leads with 19.60% vs 16.16% for IGF. On fees, IGF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, NBET has performed better with a 19.60% return vs 16.16%. 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 0.65% for NBET.

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.89%, compared with 2.41% for NBET.

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NBET and 0.39% for IGF.

NBET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.55), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NBET 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