PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCNS.TO (iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) and GRO.TO (Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GCNS.TO returned 13.41% vs 23.55% for GRO.TO. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCNS.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for GRO.TO.

Performance

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO - 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 Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCNS.TO achieves a 6.84% return, which is significantly lower than GRO.TO's 8.77% 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*
—

GRO.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
4.49%
YTD
8.77%
6M
11.39%
1Y
23.55%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
GCNS.TO
iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		6.84%7.23%9.95%
GRO.TO
Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio		8.77%11.09%15.17%

Correlation

The correlation between GCNS.TO and GRO.TO is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.13

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2024

0.09

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

Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio

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 GRO.TO:
GRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEOGRO.TO vs. FCRI.TOGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TOGRO.TO vs. MIX.TOGRO.TO vs. FLVI.NEOGRO.TO vs. VBAL.TOGRO.TO vs. VRIF.TO

Return for Risk

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO — 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
GRO.TO
GRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
GRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
GRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
GRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
GRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
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. GRO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) and Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.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.

GCNS.TOGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.59
3.00

-1.41

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.32
5.66

-3.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

3.54

-2.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.80

4.07

-1.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.32

19.41

-10.10

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. GRO.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is lower than the GRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCNS.TO and GRO.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

GCNS.TOGRO.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.59

3.00

-1.41

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

1.54

-0.61

Drawdowns

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.37%, which is greater than GRO.TO's maximum drawdown of -12.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCNS.TO and GRO.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GCNS.TOGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.37%

-12.96%

-2.41%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.81%

-5.81%

+1.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.38%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.37%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.19%

+0.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.56%

-1.25%

-2.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.22%

+0.22%

Volatility

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) is 2.47%, while Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO) has a volatility of 3.33%. This indicates that GCNS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GCNS.TOGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.47%

3.33%

-0.86%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

6.61%

-1.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.49%

7.88%

+0.61%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.20%

11.89%

-3.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.83%

11.89%

-4.06%

GCNS.TO vs. GRO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCNS.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than GRO.TO's 0.21% 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. GRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

GCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, less than GRO.TO's 2.13% yield.

PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
GCNS.TO
iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		1.98%2.07%2.03%2.88%2.09%1.60%2.49%
GRO.TO
Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio		2.13%2.04%1.50%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

GCNS.TO and GRO.TO have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GRO.TO is cheaper at 0.21% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for GCNS.TO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GCNS.TO and 0.21% for GRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCNS.TO and GRO.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