PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO

Last updated Jul 17, 2026
Documentation

CEW.TO (iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF) and DXF.TO (Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. CEW.TO is passively managed, while DXF.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEW.TO returned 21.53%/yr vs 9.88%/yr for DXF.TO. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF (DXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEW.TO achieves a 33.74% return, which is significantly higher than DXF.TO's 2.42% return.

CEW.TO

1D
-0.06%
1M
7.82%
6M
31.40%
YTD
33.74%
1Y
61.92%
3Y*
35.17%
5Y*
21.53%
10Y*
16.89%

DXF.TO

1D
-0.59%
1M
4.08%
6M
1.45%
YTD
2.42%
1Y
5.39%
3Y*
22.00%
5Y*
9.88%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEW.TO
iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF		33.74%32.70%29.62%17.18%-6.76%29.51%-0.38%25.64%-12.71%3.79%
DXF.TO
Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF		2.42%17.12%36.17%18.06%-19.33%23.02%9.67%42.59%-8.42%5.02%

Correlation

The correlation between CEW.TO and DXF.TO is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.29

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.37

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2017

0.32

The correlation between CEW.TO and DXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.37 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF

Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF

Often compared with CEW.TO:
CEW.TO vs. XFN.TOCEW.TO vs. BMOCEW.TO vs. XDIV.TOCEW.TO vs. ZEB.TOCEW.TO vs. TEC.TOCEW.TO vs. VFV.TOCEW.TO vs. RY.TO
Often compared with DXF.TO:
DXF.TO vs. DXO.TODXF.TO vs. DXB.TODXF.TO vs. DXN.TODXF.TO vs. DXC.TODXF.TO vs. DXBB.TODXF.TO vs. DXG.TODXF.TO vs. DXP.TO

Return for Risk

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CEW.TO
CEW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
DXF.TO
DXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
DXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
DXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
DXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
DXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF (DXF.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.

CEW.TODXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
5.16
0.49

+4.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
6.74
0.79

+5.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.94

1.10

+0.85

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.73

0.41

+8.32

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

32.21

1.03

+31.18

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 5.16, which is higher than the DXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEW.TO and DXF.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEW.TO drawdown since its inception was -53.50%, which is greater than DXF.TO's maximum drawdown of -35.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEW.TO and DXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEW.TODXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.50%

-35.27%

-18.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.13%

-14.42%

+7.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.72%

-14.42%

+1.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.41%

-29.06%

+6.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.66%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.06%

-0.64%

+0.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.90%

-7.67%

+0.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.93%

5.76%

-3.83%

Volatility

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) is 3.36%, while Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF (DXF.TO) has a volatility of 4.96%. This indicates that CEW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEW.TODXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.36%

4.96%

-1.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.90%

9.88%

+0.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.07%

12.18%

-0.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.59%

16.76%

-3.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.99%

22.35%

-5.36%

Dividends

CEW.TO vs. DXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CEW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than DXF.TO's 1.11% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEW.TO
iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF		2.13%2.82%3.41%3.98%3.95%3.10%3.83%3.39%3.13%2.62%2.70%2.91%
DXF.TO
Dynamic Active Global Financial Services ETF		1.11%1.13%1.18%2.14%1.95%1.07%1.30%1.40%2.08%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEW.TO and DXF.TO have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Dynamic.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEW.TO and DXF.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