PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NFRA vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NFRA vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund (NFRA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NFRA achieves a 7.66% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 1.23% return. Over a longer period, both investments have demonstrated similar performance, with their 10-year annualized returns being quite close: NFRA at 7.32% and ACWV at 7.32%.


NFRA

1D
0.02%
1M
-2.01%
YTD
7.66%
6M
7.77%
1Y
12.35%
3Y*
12.39%
5Y*
5.69%
10Y*
7.32%

ACWV

1D
-0.08%
1M
-1.78%
YTD
1.23%
6M
0.78%
1Y
3.93%
3Y*
9.62%
5Y*
5.34%
10Y*
7.32%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NFRA vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
NFRA
FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund
7.66%18.42%4.76%8.96%-10.11%9.61%2.24%26.27%-7.74%15.92%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
1.23%11.04%11.38%8.23%-10.36%13.97%3.04%21.04%-1.42%18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between NFRA and ACWV is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.73

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.79

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2013

0.86

The correlation between NFRA and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.86 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NFRA vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
NFRA
ACWV

Industrials

26.8%
8.1%

Utilities

24.7%
7.3%

Communication Services

20.5%
11.9%

Energy

11.7%
3.7%

Real Estate

4.7%
0.6%

Healthcare

4.1%
13.0%

Technology

1.6%
25.8%

Financial Services

0.7%
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

0.3%
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

0.1%
9.8%

Basic Materials

-

1.5%

Industrials

NFRA
26.8%
ACWV
8.1%

Utilities

NFRA
24.7%
ACWV
7.3%

Communication Services

NFRA
20.5%
ACWV
11.9%

Energy

NFRA
11.7%
ACWV
3.7%

Real Estate

NFRA
4.7%
ACWV
0.6%

Healthcare

NFRA
4.1%
ACWV
13.0%

Technology

NFRA
1.6%
ACWV
25.8%

Financial Services

NFRA
0.7%
ACWV
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

NFRA
0.3%
ACWV
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

NFRA
0.1%
ACWV
9.8%

Basic Materials

NFRA

-

ACWV
1.5%

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

NFRA vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

NFRA
NFRA Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
NFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
NFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
NFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NFRA vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund (NFRA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.


NFRAACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.68

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.09

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.70

0.62

+1.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.27

1.83

+3.44

NFRA vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NFRA Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NFRA and ACWV, 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

NFRA vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NFRA drawdown since its inception was -32.49%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NFRA and ACWV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NFRAACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.49%

-28.82%

-3.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.28%

-6.37%

-0.91%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.15%

-7.56%

-3.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.75%

-18.14%

-4.61%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.49%

-28.82%

-3.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.28%

-3.99%

+0.71%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.52%

-3.11%

-1.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.35%

2.15%

+0.20%

Volatility

NFRA vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund (NFRA) has a higher volatility of 2.96% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.11%. This indicates that NFRA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NFRAACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.96%

2.11%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.46%

5.70%

+2.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.49%

7.82%

+2.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.97%

10.22%

+2.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.89%

12.29%

+2.60%

NFRA vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

NFRA has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

NFRA vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

NFRA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.75%, more than ACWV's 1.98% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
1.98%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
NFRA
FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund
5.75%6.00%3.33%2.57%2.28%2.71%2.22%2.27%3.06%2.81%2.98%2.47%

Frequently Asked Questions


NFRA and ACWV have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NFRA has higher volatility (2.96%) compared to ACWV (2.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NFRA dropped -32.49% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

On 10-year performance, ACWV leads with 7.32% vs 7.32% for NFRA. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 7.32% return vs 7.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for NFRA.

NFRA has the higher dividend yield at 5.75%, compared with 1.98% for ACWV.

NFRA is categorized as Utilities Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. NFRA tracks STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for NFRA and 0.20% for ACWV.

NFRA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs 0.51), 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 NFRA and ACWV

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