NBET vs. INFR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NBET (Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF) and INFR (ClearBridge Sustainable Infrastructure ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. NBET is actively managed, while INFR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NBET returned 20.50%/yr vs 5.55%/yr for INFR. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NBET charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for INFR.

Performance

NBET vs. INFR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBET achieves a 23.49% return, which is significantly higher than INFR's 1.41% return.

NBET

• 1D: 1.28%
• 1M: -2.73%
• YTD: 23.49%
• 6M: 22.85%
• 1Y: 27.83%
• 3Y*: 20.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

INFR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 1.41%
• 6M: 1.36%
• 1Y: 6.42%
• 3Y*: 5.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBET vs. INFR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	23.49%	5.87%	30.30%	7.48%	-1.50%
INFR ClearBridge Sustainable Infrastructure ETF	1.41%	24.00%	-6.23%	5.20%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between NBET and INFR is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2022	0.47

Over the past year, the correlation between NBET and INFR has dropped to 0.09 - well below their long-term average of 0.47, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

NBET vs. INFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NBET	INFR
Energy	89.0%	-
Utilities	8.4%	68.5%
Industrials	2.6%	27.5%
Basic Materials	0.9%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	4.1%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

NBET vs. INFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBET

NBET Risk / Return Rank: 60
NBET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
NBET Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
NBET Omega Ratio Rank: 49
NBET Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
NBET Martin Ratio Rank: 62

INFR

INFR Risk / Return Rank: 29
INFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
INFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
INFR Omega Ratio Rank: 25
INFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
INFR Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

NBET vs. INFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	NBET	INFR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	0.75	+1.16
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	1.11	+1.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.17	+0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.31	1.98	+2.33
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.44	6.26	+5.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBET vs. INFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBET Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the INFR Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBET and INFR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NBET	INFR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.91	0.75	+1.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.72	0.46	+0.26

Drawdowns

NBET vs. INFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBET drawdown since its inception was -18.72%, roughly equal to the maximum INFR drawdown of -19.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBET and INFR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBET	INFR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.72%	-19.28%	+0.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.84%	-6.43%	-0.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.72%	-18.55%	-0.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.90%	-0.70%	-4.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.06%	-4.93%	-0.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	2.04%	+0.54%

Volatility

NBET vs. INFR - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF (NBET) has a higher volatility of 5.83% compared to ClearBridge Sustainable Infrastructure ETF (INFR) at 0.00%. This indicates that NBET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than INFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBET	INFR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.83%	0.00%	+5.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.12%	3.86%	+7.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.66%	9.04%	+5.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	14.27%	+5.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	14.27%	+5.28%

NBET vs. INFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBET has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than INFR's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBET vs. INFR - Dividend Comparison

NBET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, less than INFR's 2.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
INFR ClearBridge Sustainable Infrastructure ETF	2.49%	2.52%	2.36%	3.06%	0.00%
NBET Neuberger Berman Energy Transition & Infrastructure ETF	2.35%	2.70%	2.43%	1.22%	0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBET and INFR in my portfolio?

NBET and INFR have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBET or INFR?

NBET has higher volatility (5.83%) compared to INFR (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBET dropped -18.72% vs INFR's -19.28%.

Which ETF is better, NBET or INFR?

On 3-year performance, NBET leads with 20.50% vs 5.55% for INFR. On fees, INFR is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, INFR has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBET or INFR?

Over the 3-year period, NBET has performed better with a 20.50% return vs 5.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBET or INFR?

INFR is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NBET.

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

INFR has the higher dividend yield at 2.49%, compared with 2.35% for NBET.

What is the main difference between NBET and INFR?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and ClearBridge. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NBET and 0.59% for INFR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 0.75), 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.