CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO
CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) and XEG.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWW.TO is a Water Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XEG.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO returned 8.82%/yr vs 11.28%/yr for XEG.TO. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWW.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XEG.TO.
Performance
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWW.TO achieves a 5.39% return, which is significantly lower than XEG.TO's 41.24% return. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO has underperformed XEG.TO with an annualized return of 8.82%, while XEG.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 11.28% annualized return.
CWW.TO
- 1D
- -0.36%
- 1M
- 1.76%
- 6M
- 2.17%
- YTD
- 5.39%
- 1Y
- 5.67%
- 3Y*
- 6.68%
- 5Y*
- 4.21%
- 10Y*
- 8.82%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.56%
XEG.TO
- 1D
- 2.21%
- 1M
- 9.71%
- 6M
- 34.92%
- YTD
- 41.24%
- 1Y
- 62.67%
- 3Y*
- 25.35%
- 5Y*
- 31.50%
- 10Y*
- 11.28%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.52%
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWW.TO iShares Global Water Index ETF | 5.39% | 10.14% | 3.09% | 11.75% | -16.39% | 27.57% | 13.14% | 27.10% | -2.28% | 18.16% |
XEG.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF | 41.24% | 16.72% | 14.04% | 3.55% | 53.25% | 83.71% | -34.44% | 9.04% | -27.05% | -11.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWW.TO and XEG.TO is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2007 | 0.24 |
The correlation between CWW.TO and XEG.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.24 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
Industrials
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
Technology
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Real Estate
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Financial Services
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Utilities
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Basic Materials
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Energy
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
Technology
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Consumer Cyclical
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Real Estate
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
-
Communication Services
CWW.TO
-
XEG.TO
-
Consumer Defensive
CWW.TO
-
XEG.TO
-
Financial Services
CWW.TO
-
XEG.TO
-
Healthcare
CWW.TO
-
XEG.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
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CWW.TO
XEG.TO
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF (XEG.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.
| CWW.TO | XEG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.45 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.42 | -0.34 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.56 | 3.82 | -3.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.28 | 11.60 | -10.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWW.TO drawdown since its inception was -48.56%, smaller than the maximum XEG.TO drawdown of -87.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWW.TO and XEG.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWW.TO | XEG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.56% | -87.51% | +38.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.24% | -16.47% | +6.23% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.12% | -25.67% | -0.45% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.92% | -28.42% | -2.50% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -30.92% | -79.66% | +48.74% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.22% | -6.07% | -2.15% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.75% | -34.53% | +22.78% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.46% | 5.42% | -0.96% |
Volatility
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) is 3.88%, while iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF (XEG.TO) has a volatility of 7.57%. This indicates that CWW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XEG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWW.TO | XEG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.88% | 7.57% | -3.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.66% | 19.89% | -9.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.18% | 24.02% | -9.84% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.41% | 28.57% | -4.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.05% | 33.42% | -10.37% |
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWW.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XEG.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWW.TO vs. XEG.TO - Dividend Comparison
CWW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than XEG.TO's 2.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWW.TO iShares Global Water Index ETF | 1.28% | 1.37% | 1.14% | 1.21% | 1.43% | 2.96% | 1.27% | 1.42% | 3.38% | 1.61% | 1.55% | 1.32% |
XEG.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF | 2.61% | 3.63% | 3.46% | 4.26% | 3.31% | 1.64% | 2.96% | 2.70% | 2.25% | 1.41% | 1.40% | 3.58% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CWW.TO and XEG.TO have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XEG.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XEG.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for CWW.TO.
CWW.TO is categorized as Water Equities, while XEG.TO is Energy Equities. CWW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XEG.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CWW.TO and 0.60% for XEG.TO.
Find the right allocation for CWW.TO and XEG.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