PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWO.NEO achieves a 13.27% return, which is significantly higher than XGRO.TO's 10.70% return. Over the past 10 years, CWO.NEO has outperformed XGRO.TO with an annualized return of 11.24%, while XGRO.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.17% annualized return.


CWO.NEO

1D
-0.47%
1M
2.68%
YTD
13.27%
6M
12.25%
1Y
33.89%
3Y*
22.83%
5Y*
11.44%
10Y*
11.24%

XGRO.TO

1D
0.29%
1M
5.00%
YTD
10.70%
6M
8.71%
1Y
23.83%
3Y*
18.10%
5Y*
10.89%
10Y*
10.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
13.27%26.34%22.33%9.56%-9.03%7.13%-3.12%10.86%-0.29%17.16%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio
10.70%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%14.29%11.51%17.97%-6.73%11.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XGRO.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

0.49

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

0.42

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

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2009

0.49

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XGRO.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (5 years) to 0.61 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CWO.NEO
CWO.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank

XGRO.TO
XGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.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.


CWO.NEOXGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.42

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.12

3.36

-0.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.86

14.92

-3.06

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and XGRO.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


CWO.NEOXGRO.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.20

2.22

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.69

0.99

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.64

0.83

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.36

+0.10

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, smaller than the maximum XGRO.TO drawdown of -47.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and XGRO.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWO.NEOXGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.99%

-47.97%

+15.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.90%

-7.12%

-3.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.12%

-12.47%

-4.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.80%

-18.40%

-6.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.97%

-25.85%

-6.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.89%

0.00%

-1.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.28%

-8.49%

-1.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.86%

1.60%

+1.26%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) has a higher volatility of 5.38% compared to iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) at 3.40%. This indicates that CWO.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XGRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWO.NEOXGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.38%

3.40%

+1.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.46%

9.20%

+3.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.50%

10.78%

+4.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.64%

11.05%

+5.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.51%

12.26%

+5.25%

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than XGRO.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. XGRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.46%, more than XGRO.TO's 1.75% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
2.46%2.79%3.50%4.14%5.03%4.61%2.64%3.01%3.22%2.60%2.57%3.23%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio
1.75%1.92%1.98%2.22%1.86%1.66%1.94%2.21%7.42%2.04%2.65%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWO.NEO and XGRO.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, XGRO.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XGRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for CWO.NEO.

CWO.NEO is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while XGRO.TO is Diversified Portfolio. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.20% for XGRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and XGRO.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