Infrastructure ETFs: Factor Exposures, Regime Risk, and Portfolio Roles

Infrastructure exchange-traded funds share a label but not a common economic exposure. Using a survivorship-adjusted universe of U.S.-listed infrastructure and infrastructure-adjacent ETFs, monthly CRSP returns through April 2026, and seven replicable archetypes, this study tests whether differences visible in mandates survive formal empirical scrutiny. Raw returns, Sharpe ratios, and factor-adjusted alphas do not differ reliably across archetypes, but volatility, market beta, income characteristics, within-group similarity, and several systematic factor loadings do. Owner/operator funds are the lowest-beta and lowest-volatility group; development, renewable/power, digital, energy-network, water, and hybrid funds perform different portfolio jobs. Downside and rate-regime results reinforce the distinction. Starting from a 60/40 equity bond benchmark, a 60/30/10 infrastructure reallocation case and a constrained infrastructure sleeve optimization show that the preferred archetype changes with defensive, growth, income, and diversification objectives. Infrastructure selection should begin with portfolio function, not fund label or recent return.