NFRA vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NFRA (FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NFRA is a Utilities Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, NFRA returned 7.17%/yr vs 7.36%/yr for ACWV. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NFRA charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NFRA achieves a 8.93% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 2.36% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with NFRA having a 7.17% annualized return and ACWV not far ahead at 7.36%.

NFRA

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 8.93%
• 6M: 9.67%
• 1Y: 13.59%
• 3Y*: 12.91%
• 5Y*: 5.56%
• 10Y*: 7.17%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 2.36%
• 6M: 2.56%
• 1Y: 4.79%
• 3Y*: 10.06%
• 5Y*: 5.47%
• 10Y*: 7.36%

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

NFRA vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NFRA FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund	8.93%	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	2.36%	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 0.74, 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	0.74
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 10, 2013	0.86

The correlation between NFRA and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (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	25.9%	7.9%
Utilities	25.0%	7.8%
Communication Services	21.8%	12.2%
Energy	11.6%	3.4%
Real Estate	4.7%	0.8%
Healthcare	3.6%	13.2%
Technology	1.8%	22.6%
Financial Services	0.7%	13.1%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	10.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%

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: 37
NFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
NFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
NFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 35
NFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
NFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 38

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 18
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

	NFRA	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	0.62	+0.69
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	0.92	+0.97
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.11	+0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	0.76	+1.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.01	2.37	+3.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NFRA vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NFRA Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.62. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NFRA	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.32	0.62	+0.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	0.54	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48	0.60	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.71	-0.22

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	NFRA	ACWV	Difference
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	-2.15%	-2.92%	+0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.53%	-3.11%	-1.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.27%	2.03%	+0.24%

Volatility

NFRA vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares STOXX Global Broad Infrastructure Index Fund (NFRA) has a higher volatility of 3.35% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.79%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	NFRA	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.35%	1.79%	+1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.30%	5.54%	+2.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.37%	7.71%	+2.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.98%	10.23%	+2.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.97%	12.30%	+2.67%

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 5.54%, more than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.04%	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	5.54%	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

Can I hold both NFRA and ACWV in my portfolio?

NFRA and ACWV have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NFRA or ACWV?

NFRA has higher volatility (3.35%) compared to ACWV (1.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NFRA dropped -32.49% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, NFRA or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, ACWV leads with 7.36% vs 7.17% for NFRA. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 1.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NFRA or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 7.36% return vs 7.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NFRA or ACWV?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NFRA or ACWV?

NFRA has the higher dividend yield at 5.54%, compared with 2.04% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between NFRA and 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 AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for NFRA and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NFRA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 0.62), 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.