NULG vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

NULG (Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - NULG tracks the MSCI TIAA ESG USA Large Cap Growth while BIBL tracks the Inspire 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, NULG returned 13.44%/yr vs 10.29%/yr for BIBL. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NULG charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

NULG vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF (NULG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NULG achieves a 15.51% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.90% return.

NULG

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 15.51%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 24.20%
• 3Y*: 23.37%
• 5Y*: 13.44%
• 10Y*: —

BIBL

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 4.70%
• YTD: 24.90%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 38.99%
• 3Y*: 22.52%
• 5Y*: 10.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

NULG vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NULG Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF	15.51%	14.07%	23.75%	42.71%	-28.43%	28.06%	39.58%	39.23%	0.31%	3.53%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.90%	17.27%	12.49%	17.87%	-23.26%	27.44%	22.62%	29.68%	-7.64%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between NULG and BIBL is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2017	0.85

The correlation between NULG and BIBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.85 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NULG vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NULG	BIBL
Technology	60.3%	31.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	0.3%
Industrials	8.5%	27.2%
Financial Services	6.5%	8.5%
Communication Services	6.0%	-
Healthcare	5.6%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	0.4%
Basic Materials	1.7%	4.3%
Real Estate	1.0%	13.7%
Energy	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

NULG vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

NULG

NULG Risk / Return Rank: 39
NULG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
NULG Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
NULG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
NULG Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
NULG Martin Ratio Rank: 39

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 84
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

NULG vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF (NULG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	NULG	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	2.39	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.17	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.41	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	4.38	-2.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.63	18.61	-12.98

NULG vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NULG Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NULG and BIBL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NULG vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NULG drawdown since its inception was -36.17%, roughly equal to the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NULG and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	NULG	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.17%	-36.12%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.50%	-8.94%	-5.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.28%	-20.60%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.17%	-30.85%	-5.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.54%	-1.92%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.81%	-7.00%	+0.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.31%	2.10%	+2.21%

Volatility

NULG vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF (NULG) has a higher volatility of 7.92% compared to Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) at 6.81%. This indicates that NULG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NULG	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.92%	6.81%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.79%	13.65%	+1.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.28%	16.44%	+1.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.74%	19.76%	+1.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.46%	21.11%	+0.35%

NULG vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

NULG has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

NULG vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

NULG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.10%, less than BIBL's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.94%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%
NULG Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.10%	0.11%	0.16%	0.43%	0.40%	5.08%	2.68%	1.10%	3.73%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NULG and BIBL in my portfolio?

NULG and BIBL have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NULG or BIBL?

NULG has higher volatility (7.92%) compared to BIBL (6.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NULG dropped -36.17% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, NULG or BIBL?

On 5-year performance, NULG leads with 13.44% vs 10.29% for BIBL. On fees, NULG is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BIBL has been the lower-risk option at 6.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NULG or BIBL?

Over the 5-year period, NULG has performed better with a 13.44% return vs 10.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NULG or BIBL?

NULG is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for BIBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NULG or BIBL?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.10% for NULG.

What is the main difference between NULG and BIBL?

NULG tracks MSCI TIAA ESG USA Large Cap Growth, while BIBL tracks Inspire 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Nuveen and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for NULG and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.34), 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.