PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GBAL.TO (iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio) and XGRO.TO (iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds from iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GBAL.TO returned 9.04%/yr vs 10.89%/yr for XGRO.TO. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GBAL.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XGRO.TO.

Performance

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.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, GBAL.TO achieves a 9.39% return, which is significantly lower than XGRO.TO's 10.70% return.

GBAL.TO

1D
0.16%
1M
5.46%
YTD
9.39%
6M
7.35%
1Y
18.03%
3Y*
15.66%
5Y*
9.04%
10Y*
—

XGRO.TO

1D
0.29%
1M
5.00%
YTD
10.70%
6M
8.71%
1Y
23.83%
3Y*
18.10%
5Y*
10.89%
10Y*
10.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		9.39%11.77%17.38%14.48%-11.94%11.32%6.10%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		10.70%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%14.29%8.69%

Correlation

The correlation between GBAL.TO and XGRO.TO is 0.83, 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

0.83

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

0.75

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2020

0.66

The correlation between GBAL.TO and XGRO.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (all time) to 0.83 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
GBAL.TO
XGRO.TO

Technology

22.2%
25.8%

Financial Services

18.1%
20.3%

Industrials

5.4%
7.3%

Basic Materials

4.5%
5.6%

Consumer Cyclical

3.1%
6.3%

Healthcare

2.9%
5.1%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.4%

Communication Services

1.8%
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
3.8%

Utilities

0.6%
1.5%

Energy

0.0%
7.2%

Technology

GBAL.TO
22.2%
XGRO.TO
25.8%

Financial Services

GBAL.TO
18.1%
XGRO.TO
20.3%

Industrials

GBAL.TO
5.4%
XGRO.TO
7.3%

Basic Materials

GBAL.TO
4.5%
XGRO.TO
5.6%

Consumer Cyclical

GBAL.TO
3.1%
XGRO.TO
6.3%

Healthcare

GBAL.TO
2.9%
XGRO.TO
5.1%

Real Estate

GBAL.TO
1.9%
XGRO.TO
0.4%

Communication Services

GBAL.TO
1.8%
XGRO.TO
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

GBAL.TO
1.7%
XGRO.TO
3.8%

Utilities

GBAL.TO
0.6%
XGRO.TO
1.5%

Energy

GBAL.TO
0.0%
XGRO.TO
7.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio

iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio

Often compared with GBAL.TO:
GBAL.TO vs. XBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. EAORGBAL.TO vs. GEQT.TOGBAL.TO vs. XIN.TOGBAL.TO vs. GGRO.TOGBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. VFV.TO
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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GBAL.TO
GBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO
XGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.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.

GBAL.TOXGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.92
2.22

-0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.79
3.13

-0.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.42

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.83

3.36

-0.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.25

14.92

-3.67

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

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

The current GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBAL.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

GBAL.TOXGRO.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.92

2.22

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.94

0.99

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.83

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.03

0.36

+0.68

Drawdowns

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -18.92%, smaller than the maximum XGRO.TO drawdown of -47.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBAL.TO and XGRO.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GBAL.TOXGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.92%

-47.97%

+29.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.40%

-7.12%

+0.72%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.24%

-12.47%

+2.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.92%

-18.40%

-0.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-25.85%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.08%

0.00%

-0.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.30%

-8.49%

+4.19%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.61%

1.60%

+0.01%

Volatility

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) is 3.19%, while iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) has a volatility of 3.40%. This indicates that GBAL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XGRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GBAL.TOXGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.19%

3.40%

-0.21%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.87%

9.20%

-1.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.42%

10.78%

-1.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.70%

11.05%

-1.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.53%

12.26%

-2.73%

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

GBAL.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XGRO.TO's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GBAL.TO vs. XGRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

GBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than XGRO.TO's 1.75% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		1.71%1.83%1.84%2.40%1.87%1.43%0.96%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		1.75%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

GBAL.TO and XGRO.TO have a correlation of 0.83, 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 0.25% for GBAL.TO.

Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GBAL.TO and 0.20% for XGRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GBAL.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