CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO
CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) are both Energy Equities funds from iShares - CIF.TO tracks the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index while XBM.TO tracks the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 12.99%/yr vs 20.17%/yr for XBM.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XBM.TO.
Performance
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly lower than XBM.TO's 38.48% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has underperformed XBM.TO with an annualized return of 12.99%, while XBM.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.17% 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%
XBM.TO
- 1D
- -3.17%
- 1M
- 21.23%
- YTD
- 38.48%
- 6M
- 46.72%
- 1Y
- 119.30%
- 3Y*
- 29.93%
- 5Y*
- 19.70%
- 10Y*
- 20.17%
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 38.48% | 50.69% | 5.96% | 2.84% | 3.69% | 32.04% | 31.54% | 9.93% | -22.39% | 32.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIF.TO and XBM.TO is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 20, 2011 | 0.44 |
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
Utilities
-
Industrials
Energy
-
Technology
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
-
Industrials
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
Energy
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
-
Technology
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
-
Consumer Cyclical
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
-
Basic Materials
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
Communication Services
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
-
Consumer Defensive
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
-
Financial Services
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
-
Healthcare
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
-
Real Estate
CIF.TO
-
XBM.TO
-
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
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CIF.TO
XBM.TO
CIF.TO vs. XBM.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 S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.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.TO | XBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 1.49 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.72 | 5.02 | -1.30 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.46 | 19.44 | -5.98 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CIF.TO | XBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.33 | 3.37 | -1.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.28 | 0.60 | +0.68 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.78 | 0.62 | +0.16 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.54 | 0.25 | +0.29 |
Drawdowns
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, smaller than the maximum XBM.TO drawdown of -67.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and XBM.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CIF.TO | XBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -42.37% | -67.40% | +25.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.50% | -23.88% | +14.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.40% | -37.45% | +17.05% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.40% | -40.57% | +20.17% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.37% | -57.24% | +14.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.76% | -3.17% | +2.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.66% | -25.80% | +20.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.63% | 6.16% | -3.53% |
Volatility
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 5.85%, while iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a volatility of 13.03%. This indicates that CIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CIF.TO | XBM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.85% | 13.03% | -7.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.44% | 29.68% | -17.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.23% | 35.62% | -20.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.56% | 33.06% | -18.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 32.66% | -15.97% |
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than XBM.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
CIF.TO vs. XBM.TO - Dividend Comparison
CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than XBM.TO's 0.62% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 0.62% | 0.86% | 1.25% | 2.09% | 4.83% | 3.01% | 1.81% | 3.71% | 3.43% | 1.63% | 2.42% | 5.70% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CIF.TO and XBM.TO have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XBM.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XBM.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.
CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.60% for XBM.TO.
Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and XBM.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