PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GCNS.TO vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCNS.TO (iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GCNS.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). GCNS.TO is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GCNS.TO returned 6.92%/yr vs 8.48%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCNS.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

GCNS.TO is traded in CAD, while ACWV is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWV values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCNS.TO achieves a 6.84% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.66% return.

GCNS.TO

1D
0.17%
1M
4.64%
YTD
6.84%
6M
5.63%
1Y
13.41%
3Y*
12.23%
5Y*
6.92%
10Y*
—

ACWV

1D
-0.21%
1M
3.02%
YTD
3.66%
6M
2.16%
1Y
6.14%
3Y*
11.34%
5Y*
8.48%
10Y*
8.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GCNS.TO
iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		6.84%7.23%15.54%11.66%-10.94%8.07%4.37%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.66%5.95%20.95%5.85%-3.97%12.94%3.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GCNS.TO and ACWV is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.09

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

0.14

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

0.18

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2020

0.18

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GCNS.TO
ACWV

Technology

33.8%
22.6%

Financial Services

29.3%
13.1%

Industrials

9.8%
7.9%

Basic Materials

7.4%
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
5.1%

Healthcare

4.8%
13.2%

Communication Services

3.3%
12.2%

Real Estate

3.2%
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.7%
10.3%

Utilities

0.6%
7.8%

Energy

-

3.4%

Technology

GCNS.TO
33.8%
ACWV
22.6%

Financial Services

GCNS.TO
29.3%
ACWV
13.1%

Industrials

GCNS.TO
9.8%
ACWV
7.9%

Basic Materials

GCNS.TO
7.4%
ACWV
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

GCNS.TO
5.1%
ACWV
5.1%

Healthcare

GCNS.TO
4.8%
ACWV
13.2%

Communication Services

GCNS.TO
3.3%
ACWV
12.2%

Real Estate

GCNS.TO
3.2%
ACWV
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

GCNS.TO
2.7%
ACWV
10.3%

Utilities

GCNS.TO
0.6%
ACWV
7.8%

Energy

GCNS.TO

-

ACWV
3.4%

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 Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with GCNS.TO:
GCNS.TO vs. XCNS.TOGCNS.TO vs. VFV.TOGCNS.TO vs. XSTB.TOGCNS.TO vs. ZBI.TOGCNS.TO vs. CMR.TOGCNS.TO vs. GEQT.TOGCNS.TO vs. VCNS.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GCNS.TO
GCNS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
GCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCNS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCNS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
GCNS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCNS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

GCNS.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.59
0.79

+0.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.32
1.15

+1.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.14

+0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.80

1.21

+1.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.32

3.17

+6.15

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

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCNS.TO and ACWV, 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

GCNS.TOACWVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.59

0.79

+0.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

0.98

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.75

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

1.01

-0.09

Drawdowns

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.37%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -22.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCNS.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GCNS.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.37%

-22.14%

+6.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.81%

-5.09%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.38%

-8.31%

+0.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.37%

-14.16%

-1.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-22.14%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.08%

+1.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.56%

-2.53%

-1.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.94%

-0.50%

Volatility

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.47% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.76%. This indicates that GCNS.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GCNS.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.47%

1.76%

+0.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

5.85%

-0.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.49%

7.81%

+0.68%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.20%

8.68%

-0.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.83%

10.95%

-3.12%

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCNS.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV'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

GCNS.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

GCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, less than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.04%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
GCNS.TO
iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		1.98%2.07%2.03%2.88%2.09%1.60%2.49%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

GCNS.TO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for GCNS.TO.

GCNS.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GCNS.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCNS.TO and ACWV

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