PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FGRO.NEO (Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF) and XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FGRO.NEO returned 14.69%/yr vs 8.24%/yr for XBAL.TO. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FGRO.NEO charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XBAL.TO.

Performance

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.NEO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGRO.NEO achieves a 9.39% return, which is significantly higher than XBAL.TO's 8.30% return.

FGRO.NEO

1D
0.54%
1M
2.12%
YTD
9.39%
6M
10.23%
1Y
22.54%
3Y*
21.34%
5Y*
14.69%
10Y*
—

XBAL.TO

1D
0.45%
1M
4.08%
YTD
8.30%
6M
6.25%
1Y
17.97%
3Y*
14.47%
5Y*
8.24%
10Y*
7.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
FGRO.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF		9.39%17.00%25.97%16.92%-6.29%16.51%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		8.30%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%8.50%

Correlation

The correlation between FGRO.NEO and XBAL.TO is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.89

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

0.89

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021

0.85

The correlation between FGRO.NEO and XBAL.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FGRO.NEO
XBAL.TO

Financial Services

22.2%
20.5%

Technology

20.6%
21.6%

Industrials

11.3%
12.4%

Basic Materials

9.7%
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

7.7%
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
4.6%

Communication Services

4.8%
6.4%

Real Estate

4.7%
2.3%

Utilities

4.6%
2.9%

Energy

4.4%
7.5%

Healthcare

4.4%
6.6%

Financial Services

FGRO.NEO
22.2%
XBAL.TO
20.5%

Technology

FGRO.NEO
20.6%
XBAL.TO
21.6%

Industrials

FGRO.NEO
11.3%
XBAL.TO
12.4%

Basic Materials

FGRO.NEO
9.7%
XBAL.TO
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

FGRO.NEO
7.7%
XBAL.TO
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

FGRO.NEO
5.5%
XBAL.TO
4.6%

Communication Services

FGRO.NEO
4.8%
XBAL.TO
6.4%

Real Estate

FGRO.NEO
4.7%
XBAL.TO
2.3%

Utilities

FGRO.NEO
4.6%
XBAL.TO
2.9%

Energy

FGRO.NEO
4.4%
XBAL.TO
7.5%

Healthcare

FGRO.NEO
4.4%
XBAL.TO
6.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with FGRO.NEO:
FGRO.NEO vs. VGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. XGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. FBAL.NEOFGRO.NEO vs. VEQT.TOFGRO.NEO vs. ZGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. FGROFGRO.NEO vs. VFV.TO
Often compared with XBAL.TO:
XBAL.TO vs. XEQT.TOXBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. XCNS.TOXBAL.TO vs. XEI.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZLB.TOXBAL.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Return for Risk

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FGRO.NEO
FGRO.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
FGRO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.NEO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.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.

FGRO.NEOXBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.32
2.12

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.26
2.94

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.40

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.97

2.98

-0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.68

12.49

+0.19

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

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGRO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGRO.NEO and XBAL.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

FGRO.NEOXBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.32

2.12

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.40

0.94

+0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.82

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.38

0.68

+0.70

Drawdowns

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGRO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -15.23%, smaller than the maximum XBAL.TO drawdown of -28.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGRO.NEO and XBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FGRO.NEOXBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.23%

-28.83%

+13.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.54%

-6.06%

-1.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.45%

-9.35%

-2.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.23%

-17.12%

+1.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-20.93%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.37%

0.00%

-0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.52%

-3.39%

+0.87%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.76%

1.44%

+0.32%

Volatility

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.NEO) has a higher volatility of 3.58% compared to iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) at 3.14%. This indicates that FGRO.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FGRO.NEOXBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.58%

3.14%

+0.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.76%

7.22%

+0.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.66%

8.52%

+1.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.59%

8.79%

+1.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.47%

9.37%

+1.10%

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGRO.NEO has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than XBAL.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGRO.NEO vs. XBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

FGRO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.13%, less than XBAL.TO's 2.09% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FGRO.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF		1.13%1.24%1.09%1.39%4.58%0.94%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.09%2.24%2.68%2.40%2.09%1.74%1.99%2.26%3.39%2.93%3.64%3.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

FGRO.NEO and XBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XBAL.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for FGRO.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for FGRO.NEO and 0.20% for XBAL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FGRO.NEO and XBAL.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