AC.TO vs. QQC.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026

AC.TO (Air Canada) is a stock, while QQC.TO (Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged) is Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Over the past 5 years, AC.TO returned -0.60%/yr vs 19.39%/yr for QQC.TO. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Air Canada (AC.TO) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AC.TO achieves a 28.25% return, which is significantly higher than QQC.TO's 23.96% return.

AC.TO

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: 12.10%
• YTD: 28.25%
• 6M: 28.92%
• 1Y: 17.42%
• 3Y*: -0.33%
• 5Y*: -0.60%
• 10Y*: 10.78%

QQC.TO

• 1D: 1.49%
• 1M: 2.62%
• YTD: 23.96%
• 6M: 23.21%
• 1Y: 39.43%
• 3Y*: 29.20%
• 5Y*: 19.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AC.TO Air Canada	28.25%	-13.34%	19.10%	-3.61%	-8.23%	-21.30%
QQC.TO Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged	23.96%	15.38%	35.74%	51.68%	-28.05%	25.39%

Correlation

The correlation between AC.TO and QQC.TO is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 27, 2021	0.35

Return for Risk

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AC.TO

AC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 57
AC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
AC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
AC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 55
AC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
AC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 55

QQC.TO

QQC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 77
QQC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
QQC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
QQC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 81
QQC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
QQC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 65

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Air Canada (AC.TO) and Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO). 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.

	AC.TO	QQC.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.53	2.27	-1.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	2.97	-2.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.41	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	3.26	-2.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.00	10.13	-9.12

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.53, which is lower than the QQC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AC.TO and QQC.TO, 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

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AC.TO drawdown since its inception was -96.29%, which is greater than QQC.TO's maximum drawdown of -31.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AC.TO and QQC.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	AC.TO	QQC.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.29%	-31.81%	-64.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.90%	-12.14%	-16.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-50.48%	-22.58%	-27.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.39%	-31.81%	-20.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-76.67%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-52.51%	-0.39%	-52.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.58%	-7.96%	-49.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.39%	3.90%	+13.49%

Volatility

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Air Canada (AC.TO) is 8.70%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO) has a volatility of 9.17%. This indicates that AC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AC.TO	QQC.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	9.17%	-0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.78%	14.19%	+11.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.18%	17.45%	+15.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	35.47%	21.17%	+14.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	42.35%	21.03%	+21.32%

Dividends

AC.TO vs. QQC.TO - Dividend Comparison

AC.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AC.TO Air Canada	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQC.TO Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged	0.31%	0.39%	0.45%	0.54%	0.91%	0.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AC.TO and QQC.TO in my portfolio?

AC.TO and QQC.TO have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.