RING vs. ITB
RING (iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF) and ITB (iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RING is a Gold fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while ITB is a Building & Construction fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RING returned 13.85%/yr vs 14.45%/yr for ITB. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RING charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for ITB.
Performance
RING vs. ITB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RING achieves a -5.54% return, which is significantly lower than ITB's 0.87% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RING having a 13.85% annualized return and ITB not far ahead at 14.45%.
RING
- 1D
- 3.20%
- 1M
- -14.81%
- YTD
- -5.54%
- 6M
- -4.18%
- 1Y
- 54.08%
- 3Y*
- 44.87%
- 5Y*
- 18.76%
- 10Y*
- 13.85%
ITB
- 1D
- -0.81%
- 1M
- 8.40%
- YTD
- 0.87%
- 6M
- -5.10%
- 1Y
- 8.65%
- 3Y*
- 7.35%
- 5Y*
- 8.18%
- 10Y*
- 14.45%
RING vs. ITB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF | -5.54% | 164.72% | 15.98% | 12.29% | -15.40% | -7.46% | 24.98% | 49.92% | -13.14% | 10.24% |
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF | 0.87% | -5.26% | 2.06% | 68.91% | -26.26% | 49.25% | 26.42% | 48.70% | -30.92% | 59.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between RING and ITB is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2012 | 0.15 |
RING vs. ITB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RING
ITB
Basic Materials
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
RING
ITB
Communication Services
RING
-
ITB
-
Consumer Cyclical
RING
-
ITB
Consumer Defensive
RING
-
ITB
-
Energy
RING
-
ITB
-
Financial Services
RING
-
ITB
-
Healthcare
RING
-
ITB
-
Industrials
RING
-
ITB
Real Estate
RING
-
ITB
Technology
RING
-
ITB
-
Utilities
RING
-
ITB
-
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
RING vs. ITB — Risk / Return Rank
RING
ITB
RING vs. ITB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) and iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB). 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.
| RING | ITB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.06 | +0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.59 | 0.21 | +1.38 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.45 | 0.41 | +4.05 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RING vs. ITB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RING drawdown since its inception was -79.47%, smaller than the maximum ITB drawdown of -86.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RING and ITB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RING | ITB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -79.47% | -86.53% | +7.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.72% | -26.04% | -9.68% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.72% | -33.35% | -2.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.94% | -40.55% | -7.39% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -52.04% | -52.10% | +0.06% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.03% | -23.53% | -6.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -47.36% | -37.08% | -10.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.74% | 13.45% | -0.71% |
Volatility
RING vs. ITB - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) has a higher volatility of 16.83% compared to iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) at 9.26%. This indicates that RING's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ITB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RING | ITB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.83% | 9.26% | +7.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.11% | 20.89% | +18.22% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 47.31% | 29.90% | +17.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 36.81% | 29.29% | +7.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.70% | 30.05% | +6.65% |
RING vs. ITB - Expense Ratio Comparison
RING has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ITB's 0.38% expense ratio.
Dividends
RING vs. ITB - Dividend Comparison
RING's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than ITB's 1.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF | 1.17% | 1.67% | 0.46% | 0.48% | 0.86% | 0.37% | 0.46% | 0.50% | 0.63% | 0.28% | 0.43% | 0.34% |
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF | 0.89% | 0.84% | 1.43% | 2.01% | 2.29% | 2.38% | 0.83% | 0.83% | 0.70% | 0.42% | 1.41% | 0.96% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RING and ITB have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RING has higher volatility (16.83%) compared to ITB (9.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RING dropped -79.47% vs ITB's -86.53%.
On 10-year performance, ITB leads with 14.45% vs 13.85% for RING. On fees, ITB is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, ITB has been the lower-risk option at 9.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ITB has performed better with a 14.45% return vs 13.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ITB is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RING.
ITB has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.89% for RING.
RING is categorized as Gold, while ITB is Building & Construction. RING tracks MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RING and 0.38% for ITB.
RING currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs 0.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for RING and ITB
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