PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCNS.TO (iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) and XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds from iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GCNS.TO returned 6.92%/yr vs 8.15%/yr for XBAL.TO. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCNS.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XBAL.TO.

Performance

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.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 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, GCNS.TO achieves a 6.84% return, which is significantly lower than XBAL.TO's 7.81% 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*
—

XBAL.TO

1D
-0.36%
1M
4.13%
YTD
7.81%
6M
6.00%
1Y
17.48%
3Y*
14.21%
5Y*
8.15%
10Y*
7.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO - 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%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		7.81%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%10.11%7.09%

Correlation

The correlation between GCNS.TO and XBAL.TO is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.36

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

0.28

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

0.28

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

0.28

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GCNS.TO
XBAL.TO

Technology

33.8%
21.6%

Financial Services

29.3%
20.5%

Industrials

9.8%
12.4%

Basic Materials

7.4%
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
8.0%

Healthcare

4.8%
6.6%

Communication Services

3.3%
6.4%

Real Estate

3.2%
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.7%
4.6%

Utilities

0.6%
2.9%

Energy

-

7.5%

Technology

GCNS.TO
33.8%
XBAL.TO
21.6%

Financial Services

GCNS.TO
29.3%
XBAL.TO
20.5%

Industrials

GCNS.TO
9.8%
XBAL.TO
12.4%

Basic Materials

GCNS.TO
7.4%
XBAL.TO
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

GCNS.TO
5.1%
XBAL.TO
8.0%

Healthcare

GCNS.TO
4.8%
XBAL.TO
6.6%

Communication Services

GCNS.TO
3.3%
XBAL.TO
6.4%

Real Estate

GCNS.TO
3.2%
XBAL.TO
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

GCNS.TO
2.7%
XBAL.TO
4.6%

Utilities

GCNS.TO
0.6%
XBAL.TO
2.9%

Energy

GCNS.TO

-

XBAL.TO
7.5%

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 Core Balanced 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 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

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.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
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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. XBAL.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 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.

GCNS.TOXBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.59
2.06

-0.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.32
2.87

-0.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.39

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.80

2.89

-0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.32

12.15

-2.84

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. XBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is comparable to the XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCNS.TO 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

GCNS.TOXBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.59

2.06

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

0.93

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.82

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

0.68

+0.24

Drawdowns

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.37%, smaller than the maximum XBAL.TO drawdown of -28.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCNS.TO and XBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GCNS.TOXBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.37%

-28.83%

+13.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.81%

-6.06%

+1.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.38%

-9.35%

+1.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.37%

-17.12%

+1.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-20.93%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.36%

+0.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.56%

-3.39%

-0.17%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.44%

0.00%

Volatility

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) is 2.47%, while iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) has a volatility of 3.14%. This indicates that GCNS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GCNS.TOXBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.47%

3.14%

-0.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

7.21%

-1.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.49%

8.51%

-0.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.20%

8.79%

-0.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.83%

9.37%

-1.54%

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

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

GCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

GCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, less than XBAL.TO's 2.10% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.10%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

GCNS.TO and XBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.36, 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 0.25% for GCNS.TO.

Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GCNS.TO and 0.20% for XBAL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCNS.TO 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