RIFR vs. MLPB

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

RIFR (Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF) and MLPB (ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B) are both Infrastructure Equities funds. RIFR is actively managed, while MLPB is passively managed. Over the past year, RIFR returned 14.73% vs 25.65% for MLPB. Their 0.34 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. RIFR charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for MLPB.

Performance

RIFR vs. MLPB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B (MLPB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RIFR achieves a 11.99% return, which is significantly lower than MLPB's 26.62% return.

RIFR

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 0.17%
• 6M: 7.94%
• YTD: 11.99%
• 1Y: 14.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.30%

MLPB

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 7.18%
• 6M: 17.75%
• YTD: 26.62%
• 1Y: 25.65%
• 3Y*: 21.81%
• 5Y*: 22.18%
• 10Y*: 8.89%
• ALL TIME*: 7.52%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
MLPB ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B	$90.23K	$111.55K	$133.00K
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	$131.11K	$117.29K	$147.83K

RIFR vs. MLPB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	11.99%	7.25%
MLPB ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B	26.62%	0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RIFR and MLPB is 0.36, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2025	0.34

Return for Risk

RIFR vs. MLPB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RIFR

RIFR Risk / Return Rank: 60
RIFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
RIFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
RIFR Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RIFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
RIFR Martin Ratio Rank: 57

MLPB

MLPB Risk / Return Rank: 69
MLPB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
MLPB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
MLPB Omega Ratio Rank: 67
MLPB Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
MLPB Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

RIFR vs. MLPB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) and ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B (MLPB). 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.

	RIFR	MLPB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	1.67	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	2.35	-0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.29	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	2.56	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.92	6.82	+0.09

RIFR vs. MLPB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RIFR Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the MLPB Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RIFR and MLPB, 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

RIFR vs. MLPB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RIFR drawdown since its inception was -6.80%, smaller than the maximum MLPB drawdown of -71.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RIFR and MLPB.

Drawdown Indicators

	RIFR	MLPB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.80%	-71.93%	+65.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.80%	-9.28%	+2.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.49%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.41%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.93%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.21%	0.00%	-1.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.62%	-14.67%	+13.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	3.72%	-1.48%

Volatility

RIFR vs. MLPB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF (RIFR) is 3.04%, while ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B (MLPB) has a volatility of 4.65%. This indicates that RIFR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MLPB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RIFR	MLPB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.04%	4.65%	-1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.91%	11.14%	-2.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.81%	14.17%	-3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.69%	19.62%	-8.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.69%	27.20%	-16.51%

RIFR vs. MLPB - Expense Ratio Comparison

RIFR has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPB's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

RIFR vs. MLPB - Dividend Comparison

RIFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than MLPB's 5.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
MLPB ETRACS Alerian MLP Infrastructure Index ETN Series B	5.70%	6.51%	5.95%	6.37%	6.00%	6.98%	11.93%	7.98%	8.11%	7.23%	6.85%
RIFR Russell Investments Global Infrastructure ETF	0.87%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RIFR and MLPB in my portfolio?

RIFR and MLPB have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RIFR or MLPB?

MLPB has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to RIFR (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RIFR dropped -6.80% vs MLPB's -71.93%.

Which ETF is better, RIFR or MLPB?

On 1-year performance, MLPB leads with 25.65% vs 14.73% for RIFR. On fees, RIFR is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, RIFR has been the lower-risk option at 3.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RIFR or MLPB?

Over the 1-year period, MLPB has performed better with a 25.65% return vs 14.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RIFR or MLPB?

RIFR is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for MLPB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RIFR or MLPB?

MLPB has the higher dividend yield at 5.70%, compared with 0.87% for RIFR.

What is the main difference between RIFR and MLPB?

They also come from different issuers: Russell and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for RIFR and 0.85% for MLPB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MLPB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.43), 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.