ACWV vs. CASH.TO
ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and CASH.TO (Global X High Interest Savings ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index, while CASH.TO is a Money Market fund actively managed by Global X. ACWV is passively managed, while CASH.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ACWV returned 9.98%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for CASH.TO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for CASH.TO.
Performance
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
ACWV is traded in USD, while CASH.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CASH.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ACWV achieves a 2.88% return, which is significantly higher than CASH.TO's -1.09% return.
ACWV
- 1D
- 0.34%
- 1M
- 1.28%
- YTD
- 2.88%
- 6M
- 2.95%
- 1Y
- 5.56%
- 3Y*
- 9.98%
- 5Y*
- 5.46%
- 10Y*
- 7.48%
CASH.TO
- 1D
- -0.16%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- -1.09%
- 6M
- -0.39%
- 1Y
- -0.52%
- 3Y*
- 2.07%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 2.88% | 11.04% | 11.38% | 8.23% | -10.36% | 3.15% |
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF | -1.09% | 7.36% | -3.63% | 7.67% | -3.72% | -2.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between ACWV and CASH.TO is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2021 | 0.03 |
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
ACWV vs. CASH.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ACWV
CASH.TO
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.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.
| ACWV | CASH.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.62 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.88 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.00 | +0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.76 | 0.00 | +0.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.31 | 0.01 | +2.30 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, which is greater than CASH.TO's maximum drawdown of -9.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and CASH.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACWV | CASH.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.82% | -9.29% | -19.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.37% | -3.03% | -3.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.56% | -7.69% | +0.13% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.14% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.82% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.42% | -2.71% | +0.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.11% | -2.80% | -0.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.10% | 1.57% | +0.53% |
Volatility
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) has a higher volatility of 2.18% compared to Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO) at 0.76%. This indicates that ACWV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CASH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ACWV | CASH.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.18% | 0.76% | +1.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.63% | 3.22% | +2.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.80% | 4.41% | +3.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.23% | 6.24% | +3.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.30% | 6.24% | +6.06% |
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CASH.TO's 0.11% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ACWV vs. CASH.TO - Dividend Comparison
ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.03%, less than CASH.TO's 2.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 2.03% | 2.09% | 2.33% | 2.41% | 2.18% | 1.92% | 1.77% | 2.54% | 2.32% | 2.04% | 2.56% | 2.28% |
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF | 2.19% | 2.53% | 4.37% | 5.05% | 2.30% | 0.10% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ACWV and CASH.TO have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CASH.TO is cheaper at 0.11% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CASH.TO is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.
ACWV is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while CASH.TO is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.11% for CASH.TO.
Find the right allocation for ACWV and CASH.TO
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