XLB vs. IGF
XLB (Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF) and IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XLB is a Materials fund tracking the Materials Select Sector Index, while IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XLB returned 10.54%/yr vs 8.67%/yr for IGF. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XLB charges 0.13%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for IGF.
Performance
XLB vs. IGF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XLB achieves a 15.57% return, which is significantly higher than IGF's 9.68% return. Over the past 10 years, XLB has outperformed IGF with an annualized return of 10.54%, while IGF has yielded a comparatively lower 8.67% annualized return.
XLB
- 1D
- 1.87%
- 1M
- 0.23%
- YTD
- 15.57%
- 6M
- 16.68%
- 1Y
- 20.35%
- 3Y*
- 10.88%
- 5Y*
- 6.01%
- 10Y*
- 10.54%
IGF
- 1D
- 0.67%
- 1M
- 0.31%
- YTD
- 9.68%
- 6M
- 10.24%
- 1Y
- 16.24%
- 3Y*
- 16.28%
- 5Y*
- 10.22%
- 10Y*
- 8.67%
XLB vs. IGF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF | 15.57% | 9.94% | 0.15% | 12.46% | -12.30% | 27.44% | 20.46% | 24.13% | -14.88% | 24.01% |
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 XLB and IGF is 0.55, 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2007 | 0.70 |
The correlation between XLB and IGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.70 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XLB vs. IGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XLB
IGF
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Industrials
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
XLB
IGF
-
Consumer Cyclical
XLB
IGF
-
Industrials
XLB
IGF
Communication Services
XLB
-
IGF
-
Consumer Defensive
XLB
-
IGF
-
Energy
XLB
-
IGF
Financial Services
XLB
-
IGF
-
Healthcare
XLB
-
IGF
-
Real Estate
XLB
-
IGF
Technology
XLB
-
IGF
-
Utilities
XLB
-
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
XLB vs. IGF — Risk / Return Rank
XLB
IGF
XLB vs. IGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB) 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.
| XLB | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.27 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.65 | 2.78 | -1.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.05 | 8.03 | -2.98 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XLB vs. IGF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XLB drawdown since its inception was -59.83%, roughly equal to the maximum IGF drawdown of -58.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLB and IGF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XLB | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.83% | -58.33% | -1.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.38% | -5.87% | -6.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.17% | -14.28% | -8.89% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.72% | -20.83% | -3.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.27% | -42.11% | +4.84% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.25% | -2.98% | +0.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.83% | -11.86% | +1.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.04% | 2.04% | +2.00% |
Volatility
XLB vs. IGF - Volatility Comparison
Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLB) has a higher volatility of 7.05% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) at 3.85%. This indicates that XLB'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
| XLB | IGF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.05% | 3.85% | +3.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.58% | 8.73% | +4.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.49% | 10.58% | +6.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.06% | 14.00% | +5.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.70% | 16.83% | +3.87% |
XLB vs. IGF - Expense Ratio Comparison
XLB has a 0.13% expense ratio, which is lower than IGF's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
XLB vs. IGF - Dividend Comparison
XLB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, 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% |
XLB Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF | 1.68% | 1.92% | 1.92% | 2.00% | 2.26% | 1.62% | 1.72% | 1.98% | 2.20% | 1.66% | 1.95% | 2.24% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XLB and IGF have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XLB has higher volatility (7.05%) compared to IGF (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XLB dropped -59.83% vs IGF's -58.33%.
On 10-year performance, XLB leads with 10.54% vs 8.67% for IGF. On fees, XLB is cheaper at 0.13% 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, XLB has performed better with a 10.54% return vs 8.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XLB is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.
IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 1.68% for XLB.
XLB is categorized as Materials, while IGF is Industrials Equities. XLB tracks Materials Select Sector Index, while IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.13% for XLB and 0.39% for IGF.
IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.17), 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 XLB 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