PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 12.99%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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 XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has underperformed XQQ.TO with an annualized return of 12.99%, while XQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.70% 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%

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%37.48%-2.33%31.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.49

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

0.47

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

0.50

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

0.44

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2011

0.44

The correlation between CIF.TO and XQQ.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
CIF.TO
XQQ.TO

Utilities

46.9%
1.4%

Industrials

31.8%
3.1%

Energy

20.8%
0.6%

Technology

0.5%
53.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
12.2%

Basic Materials

-

1.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.7%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Utilities

CIF.TO
46.9%
XQQ.TO
1.4%

Industrials

CIF.TO
31.8%
XQQ.TO
3.1%

Energy

CIF.TO
20.8%
XQQ.TO
0.6%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.5%
XQQ.TO
53.7%

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
XQQ.TO
12.2%

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
1.1%

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
15.8%

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
7.7%

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.2%

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
4.2%

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.1%

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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.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
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
2.45

-0.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
3.20

-0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.42

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.72

3.03

+0.69

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.46

11.31

+2.15

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. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33

2.45

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.28

0.68

+0.60

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

0.89

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.86

-0.33

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, which is greater than XQQ.TO's maximum drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.37%

-38.55%

-3.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-12.76%

+3.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-22.72%

+2.32%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-38.55%

+18.15%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.37%

-38.55%

-3.82%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-0.27%

-0.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-5.92%

+0.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.63%

3.41%

-0.78%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) at 4.48%. This indicates that CIF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIF.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

4.48%

+1.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

12.00%

+0.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.23%

15.82%

-0.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.56%

22.52%

-7.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

22.34%

-5.65%

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

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% 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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIF.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and XQQ.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