PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and XAW.TO (iShares Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XAW.TO is a Global Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 12.99%/yr vs 13.22%/yr for XAW.TO. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for XAW.TO.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - 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 Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF (XAW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly higher than XAW.TO's 13.70% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CIF.TO having a 12.99% annualized return and XAW.TO not far ahead at 13.22%.

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%

XAW.TO

1D
-0.37%
1M
7.13%
YTD
13.70%
6M
12.70%
1Y
30.51%
3Y*
21.73%
5Y*
13.96%
10Y*
13.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - 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%
XAW.TO
iShares Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF		13.70%15.87%26.31%18.45%-11.84%18.38%12.37%19.82%-2.28%16.10%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and XAW.TO is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.61

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

0.64

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

0.65

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

0.62

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2015

0.62

The correlation between CIF.TO and XAW.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CIF.TO
XAW.TO

Utilities

46.9%
2.2%

Industrials

31.8%
9.1%

Energy

20.8%
3.3%

Technology

0.5%
32.6%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
8.8%

Basic Materials

-

2.8%

Communication Services

-

8.7%

Consumer Defensive

-

4.6%

Financial Services

-

13.7%

Healthcare

-

7.8%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Utilities

CIF.TO
46.9%
XAW.TO
2.2%

Industrials

CIF.TO
31.8%
XAW.TO
9.1%

Energy

CIF.TO
20.8%
XAW.TO
3.3%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.5%
XAW.TO
32.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
XAW.TO
8.8%

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
2.8%

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
8.7%

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
4.6%

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
13.7%

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
7.8%

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

XAW.TO
1.4%

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 Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index 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 XAW.TO:
XAW.TO vs. XEQT.TOXAW.TO vs. VXC.TOXAW.TO vs. VEQT.TOXAW.TO vs. XUU.TOXAW.TO vs. XIC.TOXAW.TO vs. XGRO.TOXAW.TO vs. VT

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO — 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
XAW.TO
XAW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
XAW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XAW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
XAW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
XAW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
XAW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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. XAW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and iShares Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF (XAW.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.

CIF.TOXAW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
2.50

-0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
3.49

-0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.48

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.72

3.76

-0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.46

15.15

-1.70

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. XAW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the XAW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and XAW.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CIF.TOXAW.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33

2.50

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.28

1.04

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

0.88

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.78

-0.25

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, which is greater than XAW.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and XAW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TOXAW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.37%

-27.32%

-15.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-8.16%

-1.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-16.66%

-3.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-21.02%

+0.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.37%

-27.32%

-15.05%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-0.37%

-0.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-3.91%

-1.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.63%

2.02%

+0.61%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to iShares Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF (XAW.TO) at 4.21%. This indicates that CIF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XAW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIF.TOXAW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

4.21%

+1.64%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

9.85%

+2.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.23%

12.25%

+2.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.56%

13.56%

+1.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

15.12%

+1.57%

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than XAW.TO's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. XAW.TO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than XAW.TO's 1.17% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XAW.TO
iShares Core MSCI All Country World ex Canada Index ETF		1.17%1.33%1.61%1.71%1.79%1.77%1.49%2.02%2.29%1.92%1.80%1.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIF.TO and XAW.TO have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XAW.TO is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XAW.TO is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while XAW.TO is Global Equities. CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XAW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.22% for XAW.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and XAW.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