SMH vs. IGF
SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMH is a Semiconductors fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SMH returned 37.49%/yr vs 8.67%/yr for IGF. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SMH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.
Performance
SMH vs. IGF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SMH achieves a 72.15% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 9.68% return. Over the past 10 years, SMH has outperformed IGF with an annualized return of 37.49%, while IGF has yielded a comparatively lower 8.67% annualized return.
SMH
- 1D
- 1.72%
- 1M
- 7.20%
- YTD
- 72.15%
- 6M
- 75.62%
- 1Y
- 141.99%
- 3Y*
- 60.05%
- 5Y*
- 38.42%
- 10Y*
- 37.49%
IGF
- 1D
- 0.67%
- 1M
- -0.03%
- YTD
- 9.68%
- 6M
- 10.24%
- 1Y
- 17.04%
- 3Y*
- 16.28%
- 5Y*
- 10.22%
- 10Y*
- 8.67%
SMH vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 72.15% | 49.17% | 39.10% | 73.38% | -33.53% | 42.13% | 55.53% | 64.45% | -9.05% | 38.48% |
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 9.68% | 21.31% | 14.81% | 6.14% | -1.26% | 11.57% | -6.50% | 25.82% | -9.95% | 19.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between SMH and IGF is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2007 | 0.51 |
The correlation between SMH and IGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (3 years) to 0.51 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
SMH vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
SMH
IGF
Technology
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
SMH
IGF
-
Basic Materials
SMH
-
IGF
-
Communication Services
SMH
-
IGF
-
Consumer Cyclical
SMH
-
IGF
-
Consumer Defensive
SMH
-
IGF
-
Energy
SMH
-
IGF
Financial Services
SMH
-
IGF
-
Healthcare
SMH
-
IGF
-
Industrials
SMH
-
IGF
Real Estate
SMH
-
IGF
Utilities
SMH
-
IGF
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
SMH vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank
SMH
IGF
SMH vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) and iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF). 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.
| SMH | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.59 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.04 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.60 | 1.27 | +0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.18 | 2.78 | +6.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 33.74 | 8.03 | +25.71 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SMH vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SMH drawdown since its inception was -84.96%, which is greater than IGF's maximum drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMH and IGF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SMH | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -84.96% | -58.33% | -26.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.93% | -5.87% | -9.06% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.74% | -14.28% | -21.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.30% | -20.83% | -24.47% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.30% | -42.11% | -3.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.81% | -2.98% | +0.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -41.04% | -11.86% | -29.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.06% | 2.04% | +2.02% |
Volatility
SMH vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) has a higher volatility of 16.25% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.85%. This indicates that SMH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SMH | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.25% | 3.85% | +12.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.73% | 8.73% | +19.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 33.20% | 10.58% | +22.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.47% | 14.00% | +21.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.82% | 16.83% | +15.99% |
SMH vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison
SMH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
SMH vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison
SMH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.18%, less than IGF's 2.94% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF | 2.94% | 3.23% | 3.21% | 3.36% | 2.67% | 2.42% | 2.33% | 3.27% | 3.52% | 2.95% | 2.98% | 3.25% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 0.18% | 0.31% | 0.44% | 0.60% | 1.18% | 0.51% | 0.69% | 1.50% | 1.88% | 1.43% | 0.80% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SMH and IGF have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMH has higher volatility (16.25%) compared to IGF (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMH dropped -84.96% vs IGF's -58.33%.
On 10-year performance, SMH leads with 37.49% vs 8.67% for IGF. On fees, SMH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SMH has performed better with a 37.49% return vs 8.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SMH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 0.18% for SMH.
SMH is categorized as Semiconductors, while IGF is Industrials Equities. SMH tracks MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for SMH and 0.39% for IGF.
SMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.13 vs 1.55), 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 SMH and IGF
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