PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CIF.TO vs. XFR.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 Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.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 28.27% return, which is significantly higher than XFR.TO's 1.15% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has outperformed XFR.TO with an annualized return of 13.58%, while XFR.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 2.25% annualized return.


CIF.TO

1D
-0.15%
1M
3.03%
YTD
28.27%
6M
21.43%
1Y
36.41%
3Y*
27.18%
5Y*
19.02%
10Y*
13.58%

XFR.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
0.20%
YTD
1.15%
6M
1.23%
1Y
2.86%
3Y*
3.93%
5Y*
3.23%
10Y*
2.25%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF
28.27%14.57%25.83%14.99%6.22%18.14%-0.31%24.93%-5.12%2.73%
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF
1.15%3.33%4.57%5.29%1.81%0.15%0.98%2.26%1.20%1.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and XFR.TO is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.01

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

0.01

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

0.03

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

0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2011

0.05

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. XFR.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: 8080
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

XFR.TO
XFR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
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. XFR.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 Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.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.


CIF.TOXFR.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.63

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.51

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.93

-0.50

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.85

28.76

-24.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.76

84.45

-70.68

CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is lower than the XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and XFR.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

CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -45.41%, which is greater than XFR.TO's maximum drawdown of -4.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and XFR.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CIF.TOXFR.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.41%

-4.12%

-41.29%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.49%

-0.10%

-9.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.33%

-0.30%

-20.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.33%

-0.30%

-20.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.41%

-4.12%

-41.29%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.53%

-0.05%

-0.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.73%

-0.06%

-9.67%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.65%

0.03%

+2.62%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.78% compared to iShares Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.TO) at 0.25%. This indicates that CIF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XFR.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CIF.TOXFR.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.78%

0.25%

+4.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.80%

0.49%

+12.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.62%

0.72%

+14.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.15%

0.85%

+14.30%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.97%

1.86%

+24.11%

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

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than XFR.TO's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIF.TO vs. XFR.TO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.78%, less than XFR.TO's 2.77% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF
1.78%2.14%3.13%2.63%2.83%2.55%2.37%2.11%2.82%2.64%2.09%2.81%
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF
2.77%3.23%4.93%4.91%1.84%0.30%1.07%1.99%1.64%0.92%0.65%0.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


CIF.TO and XFR.TO have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XFR.TO is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XFR.TO is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while XFR.TO is Canadian Government Bonds. CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XFR.TO tracks Morningstar Can 1-5Y Core Bd GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.14% for XFR.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and XFR.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