PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EVO.TO vs. XML.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EVO.TO (Evovest Global Equity ETF) and XML.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both Global Equities funds. EVO.TO is actively managed, while XML.TO is passively managed. Over the past year, EVO.TO returned 10.06% vs 9.71% for XML.TO. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EVO.TO charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for XML.TO.

Performance

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Evovest Global Equity ETF (EVO.TO) and iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EVO.TO achieves a 8.74% return, which is significantly higher than XML.TO's 3.89% return.

EVO.TO

1D
0.33%
1M
3.77%
YTD
8.74%
6M
-0.44%
1Y
10.06%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

XML.TO

1D
-0.12%
1M
-0.91%
YTD
3.89%
6M
5.30%
1Y
9.71%
3Y*
13.01%
5Y*
9.34%
10Y*
7.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
EVO.TO
Evovest Global Equity ETF		8.74%14.20%6.29%
XML.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		3.89%17.56%6.06%

Correlation

The correlation between EVO.TO and XML.TO is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.34

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024

0.34

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Evovest Global Equity ETF

iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with EVO.TO:
EVO.TO vs. NSCE.TOEVO.TO vs. KNGG.TOEVO.TO vs. BGIE.TOEVO.TO vs. NHYB.TOEVO.TO vs. FCIN.NEOEVO.TO vs. FGEP.TOEVO.TO vs. VXM.TO
Often compared with XML.TO:
XML.TO vs. XIN.TOXML.TO vs. XSP.TOXML.TO vs. XMI.TOXML.TO vs. XMU.TOXML.TO vs. HXQ.TOXML.TO vs. XEQT.TOXML.TO vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EVO.TO
EVO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
EVO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EVO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
EVO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
EVO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
EVO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
XML.TO
XML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
XML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
XML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
XML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
XML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
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.

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Evovest Global Equity ETF (EVO.TO) and iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.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.

EVO.TOXML.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.65
1.15

-0.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.92
1.63

-0.71

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.23

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.86

2.00

-1.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.48

5.42

-2.94

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

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EVO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the XML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EVO.TO and XML.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

EVO.TOXML.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.65

1.15

-0.49

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.97

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.61

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.82

0.62

+0.20

Drawdowns

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EVO.TO drawdown since its inception was -12.72%, smaller than the maximum XML.TO drawdown of -28.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVO.TO and XML.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EVO.TOXML.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-12.72%

-28.62%

+15.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.77%

-4.88%

-6.89%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-7.46%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-12.34%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-28.62%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.51%

-4.26%

+2.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.42%

-3.41%

+0.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.06%

1.80%

+2.26%

Volatility

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Volatility Comparison

Evovest Global Equity ETF (EVO.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.45% compared to iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.TO) at 2.60%. This indicates that EVO.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EVO.TOXML.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.45%

2.60%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.42%

6.48%

+6.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.43%

8.50%

+6.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.69%

9.70%

+6.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

12.09%

+4.60%

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

EVO.TO has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than XML.TO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

EVO.TO vs. XML.TO - Dividend Comparison

EVO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than XML.TO's 2.66% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
EVO.TO
Evovest Global Equity ETF		0.56%0.61%0.78%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XML.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		2.66%2.76%2.67%2.56%2.02%1.92%1.11%3.62%2.77%1.92%3.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

EVO.TO and XML.TO have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XML.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XML.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for EVO.TO.

They also come from different issuers: National Bank Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for EVO.TO and 0.40% for XML.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EVO.TO and XML.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