PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWW.TO (iShares Global Water Index ETF) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CWW.TO is a Water Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO returned 8.42%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWW.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.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 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, CWW.TO achieves a 0.67% return, which is significantly lower than XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Over the past 10 years, CWW.TO has underperformed XQQ.TO with an annualized return of 8.42%, while XQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.70% 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%

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)

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.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%
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 CWW.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.35

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

0.35

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

0.48

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

0.48

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

0.47

The correlation between CWW.TO and XQQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (3 years) to 0.48 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
CWW.TO
XQQ.TO

Utilities

46.7%
1.4%

Industrials

44.2%
3.1%

Basic Materials

5.8%
1.1%

Energy

1.6%
0.6%

Technology

1.1%
53.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%
12.2%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.7%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Utilities

CWW.TO
46.7%
XQQ.TO
1.4%

Industrials

CWW.TO
44.2%
XQQ.TO
3.1%

Basic Materials

CWW.TO
5.8%
XQQ.TO
1.1%

Energy

CWW.TO
1.6%
XQQ.TO
0.6%

Technology

CWW.TO
1.1%
XQQ.TO
53.7%

Consumer Cyclical

CWW.TO
0.5%
XQQ.TO
12.2%

Real Estate

CWW.TO
0.2%
XQQ.TO
0.1%

Communication Services

CWW.TO

-

XQQ.TO
15.8%

Consumer Defensive

CWW.TO

-

XQQ.TO
7.7%

Financial Services

CWW.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.2%

Healthcare

CWW.TO

-

XQQ.TO
4.2%

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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 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

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.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
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.

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.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 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.

CWW.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.23
2.45

-2.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.44
3.20

-2.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.42

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.32

3.03

-2.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.79

11.31

-10.52

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. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is lower than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWW.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

CWW.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.23

2.45

-2.21

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.68

-0.40

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.89

-0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.86

-0.48

Drawdowns

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWW.TO drawdown since its inception was -46.54%, 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 CWW.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CWW.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.54%

-38.55%

-7.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.24%

-12.76%

+2.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.77%

-22.72%

+2.95%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.05%

-38.55%

+7.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.05%

-38.55%

+7.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.12%

-0.27%

-7.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.47%

-5.92%

-3.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.11%

3.41%

+0.70%

Volatility

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Water Index ETF (CWW.TO) is 4.23%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that CWW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CWW.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.23%

4.48%

-0.25%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.85%

12.00%

-1.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.83%

15.82%

-1.99%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.40%

22.52%

-7.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.52%

22.34%

-5.82%

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

CWW.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWW.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CWW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% 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%
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

CWW.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.35, 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 0.66% for CWW.TO.

CWW.TO is categorized as Water Equities, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CWW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for CWW.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWW.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