PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CIF.TO vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 12.99%/yr vs 8.14%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CIF.TO is traded in CAD, while ACWV is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWV values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.66% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 12.99%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 8.14% annualized return.

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%

ACWV

1D
-0.21%
1M
3.02%
YTD
3.66%
6M
2.16%
1Y
6.14%
3Y*
11.34%
5Y*
8.48%
10Y*
8.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%23.55%-5.46%2.34%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.66%5.95%20.95%5.85%-3.97%12.94%1.30%15.09%6.94%11.02%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and ACWV is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.28

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

0.39

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

0.44

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2011

0.44

The correlation between CIF.TO and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.45 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CIF.TO
ACWV

Utilities

46.9%
7.8%

Industrials

31.8%
7.9%

Energy

20.8%
3.4%

Technology

0.5%
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
5.1%

Basic Materials

-

1.8%

Communication Services

-

12.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

10.3%

Financial Services

-

13.1%

Healthcare

-

13.2%

Real Estate

-

0.8%

Utilities

CIF.TO
46.9%
ACWV
7.8%

Industrials

CIF.TO
31.8%
ACWV
7.9%

Energy

CIF.TO
20.8%
ACWV
3.4%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.5%
ACWV
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
ACWV
5.1%

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
1.8%

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
12.2%

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
10.3%

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
13.1%

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
13.2%

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

ACWV
0.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

CIF.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
0.79

+1.54

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
1.15

+1.97

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.14

+0.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.72

1.21

+2.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.46

3.17

+10.29

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and ACWV, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CIF.TOACWVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33

0.79

+1.54

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.28

0.98

+0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

0.75

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

1.01

-0.47

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 -22.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.37%

-22.14%

-20.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-5.09%

-4.41%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-8.31%

-12.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-14.16%

-6.24%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.37%

-22.14%

-20.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-1.08%

+0.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-2.53%

-3.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.63%

1.94%

+0.69%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.76%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIF.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

1.76%

+4.09%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

5.85%

+6.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.23%

7.81%

+7.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.56%

8.68%

+5.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

10.95%

+5.74%

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.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.04%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIF.TO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and ACWV

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