PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) and XGRO.TO (iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - CWW.TO is a Water Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XGRO.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares. CWW.TO is passively managed, while XGRO.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO returned 8.42%/yr vs 10.20%/yr for XGRO.TO. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWW.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XGRO.TO.

Performance

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) 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, CWW.TO achieves a 0.67% return, which is significantly lower than XGRO.TO's 10.38% return. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO has underperformed XGRO.TO with an annualized return of 8.42%, while XGRO.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 10.20% annualized return.

CWW.TO

1D
0.76%
1M
-0.37%
YTD
0.67%
6M
-4.32%
1Y
3.23%
3Y*
6.26%
5Y*
4.32%
10Y*
8.42%

XGRO.TO

1D
-0.18%
1M
5.42%
YTD
10.38%
6M
8.74%
1Y
23.44%
3Y*
17.87%
5Y*
10.83%
10Y*
10.20%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		0.67%10.11%2.99%11.71%-16.52%27.08%12.93%26.85%-2.69%17.91%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		10.38%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%14.29%11.51%17.97%-6.73%11.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CWW.TO and XGRO.TO is 0.55, 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

0.55

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

0.60

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

0.67

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2007

0.51

The correlation between CWW.TO and XGRO.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (all time) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CWW.TO
XGRO.TO

Utilities

46.7%
1.5%

Industrials

44.2%
7.3%

Basic Materials

5.8%
5.6%

Energy

1.6%
7.2%

Technology

1.1%
25.8%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
6.3%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.4%

Communication Services

-

6.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

3.8%

Financial Services

-

20.3%

Healthcare

-

5.1%

Utilities

CWW.TO
46.7%
XGRO.TO
1.5%

Industrials

CWW.TO
44.2%
XGRO.TO
7.3%

Basic Materials

CWW.TO
5.8%
XGRO.TO
5.6%

Energy

CWW.TO
1.6%
XGRO.TO
7.2%

Technology

CWW.TO
1.1%
XGRO.TO
25.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CWW.TO
0.5%
XGRO.TO
6.3%

Real Estate

CWW.TO
0.2%
XGRO.TO
0.4%

Communication Services

CWW.TO

-

XGRO.TO
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

CWW.TO

-

XGRO.TO
3.8%

Financial Services

CWW.TO

-

XGRO.TO
20.3%

Healthcare

CWW.TO

-

XGRO.TO
5.1%

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 Water Index ETF

iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio

Often compared with CWW.TO:
CWW.TO vs. FIWCWW.TO vs. COW.TOCWW.TO vs. CIF.TOCWW.TO vs. KBWBCWW.TO vs. VFV.TOCWW.TO vs. XAW.TOCWW.TO vs. ENFR
Often compared with XGRO.TO:
XGRO.TO vs. XEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. VGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. VEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. XCG.TOXGRO.TO vs. TGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. ZGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. XAW.TO

Return for Risk

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CWW.TO
CWW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO
XGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.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 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.

CWW.TOXGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.23
2.18

-1.95

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.44
3.09

-2.65

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.41

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.32

3.30

-2.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.79

14.67

-13.88

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is lower than the XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWW.TO 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

CWW.TOXGRO.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

2.18

-1.95

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.99

-0.70

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.84

-0.32

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.35

+0.03

Drawdowns

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWW.TO drawdown since its inception was -46.54%, roughly equal to the maximum XGRO.TO drawdown of -47.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWW.TO and XGRO.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CWW.TOXGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.54%

-47.97%

+1.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.24%

-7.12%

-3.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.77%

-12.47%

-7.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.05%

-18.40%

-12.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.05%

-25.85%

-5.20%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.12%

-0.18%

-7.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.47%

-8.49%

-0.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.11%

1.60%

+2.51%

Volatility

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.23% compared to iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) at 3.43%. This indicates that CWW.TO'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

CWW.TOXGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.23%

3.43%

+0.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.85%

9.19%

+1.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.83%

10.78%

+3.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.40%

11.05%

+4.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.52%

12.26%

+4.26%

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWW.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XGRO.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWW.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

CWW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than XGRO.TO's 1.76% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CWW.TO
iShares Global Water Index ETF		1.56%1.34%1.05%1.17%1.28%2.62%1.11%1.24%2.95%1.41%1.60%1.16%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		1.76%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

CWW.TO and XGRO.TO have a correlation of 0.55, 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 0.66% for CWW.TO.

CWW.TO is categorized as Water Equities, while XGRO.TO is Diversified Portfolio. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CWW.TO and 0.20% for XGRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWW.TO 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