CIF.TO vs. ACWV
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV).
CIF.TO and ACWV are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CIF.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. It was launched on Aug 27, 2008. ACWV is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). It was launched on Oct 18, 2011. Both CIF.TO and ACWV are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CIF.TO or ACWV.
Key characteristics
| CIF.TO | ACWV | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 33.91% | 14.98% |
| 1Y Return | 42.89% | 21.90% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 17.14% | 4.41% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 14.64% | 6.09% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 10.68% | 7.49% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 4.11 | 3.03 |
| Sortino Ratio | 5.97 | 4.20 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.79 | 1.55 |
| Calmar Ratio | 9.35 | 2.65 |
| Martin Ratio | 27.05 | 19.46 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.65% | 1.16% |
| Daily Std Dev | 10.81% | 7.43% |
| Max Drawdown | -42.37% | -28.82% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | -0.82% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIF.TO and ACWV is 0.63, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 33.91% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 14.98% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 10.68%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.49% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.
Dividends
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison
CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.84%, more than ACWV's 2.16% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIF.TO iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF | 2.84% | 2.63% | 2.83% | 2.49% | 2.30% | 2.05% | 2.73% | 2.53% | 2.01% | 2.69% | 6.64% | 4.27% |
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 2.16% | 2.41% | 2.18% | 1.92% | 1.77% | 2.54% | 2.32% | 2.04% | 2.56% | 2.28% | 2.23% | 2.47% |
Drawdowns
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and ACWV. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.76% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.15%. This indicates that CIF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.