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

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. XMM.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 MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.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 13.80% return, which is significantly lower than XMM.TO's 18.98% return. Over the past 10 years, CWO.NEO has outperformed XMM.TO with an annualized return of 11.43%, while XMM.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 6.86% annualized return.


CWO.NEO

1D
-1.42%
1M
4.14%
YTD
13.80%
6M
13.05%
1Y
35.32%
3Y*
23.05%
5Y*
11.55%
10Y*
11.43%

XMM.TO

1D
-0.77%
1M
9.35%
YTD
18.98%
6M
17.95%
1Y
27.44%
3Y*
15.00%
5Y*
8.00%
10Y*
6.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
13.80%26.34%22.33%9.56%-9.03%7.13%-3.12%10.86%-0.29%17.16%
XMM.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF
18.98%7.65%16.66%4.10%-7.83%3.95%4.32%1.36%2.35%18.74%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XMM.TO is 0.63, 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

0.63

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

0.48

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

0.46

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

0.56

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2012

0.60

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XMM.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (5 years) to 0.63 (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. XMM.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: 6868
Overall Rank
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank

XMM.TO
XMM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
XMM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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. XMM.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 MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.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.NEOXMM.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.46

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

3.15

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.37

11.25

+1.13

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

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the XMM.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and XMM.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.NEOXMM.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.29

2.19

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

0.77

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.57

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.55

-0.10

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. XMM.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, which is greater than XMM.TO's maximum drawdown of -22.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and XMM.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWO.NEOXMM.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.99%

-22.07%

-9.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.90%

-8.76%

-2.14%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.12%

-9.94%

-7.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.80%

-15.42%

-9.38%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.97%

-22.07%

-9.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.42%

-0.77%

-0.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.29%

-5.21%

-5.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.86%

2.45%

+0.41%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. XMM.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.TO) have volatilities of 5.40% and 5.38%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWO.NEOXMM.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.40%

5.38%

+0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.46%

11.25%

+1.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.50%

12.57%

+2.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.65%

10.40%

+6.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.52%

12.02%

+5.50%

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

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than XMM.TO's 0.42% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. XMM.TO - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than XMM.TO's 2.00% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
2.45%2.79%3.50%4.14%5.03%4.61%2.64%3.01%3.22%2.60%2.57%3.23%
XMM.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF
2.00%2.37%2.95%2.55%1.55%1.91%2.09%2.44%2.21%2.09%2.32%2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWO.NEO and XMM.TO have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMM.TO is cheaper at 0.42% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMM.TO is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for CWO.NEO.

CWO.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index, while XMM.TO tracks Morningstar EM GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.42% for XMM.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and XMM.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