PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GCNS.TO (iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - GCNS.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. GCNS.TO is actively managed, while XQQ.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GCNS.TO returned 6.92%/yr vs 15.31%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GCNS.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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 XQQ.TO's 19.81% 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*
—

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%17.22%

Correlation

The correlation between GCNS.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.33

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

0.17

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

0.19

The correlation between GCNS.TO and XQQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.17 (3 years) to 0.33 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
GCNS.TO
XQQ.TO

Technology

33.8%
53.7%

Financial Services

29.3%
0.2%

Industrials

9.8%
3.1%

Basic Materials

7.4%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
12.2%

Healthcare

4.8%
4.2%

Communication Services

3.3%
15.8%

Real Estate

3.2%
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.7%
7.7%

Utilities

0.6%
1.4%

Energy

-

0.6%

Technology

GCNS.TO
33.8%
XQQ.TO
53.7%

Financial Services

GCNS.TO
29.3%
XQQ.TO
0.2%

Industrials

GCNS.TO
9.8%
XQQ.TO
3.1%

Basic Materials

GCNS.TO
7.4%
XQQ.TO
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

GCNS.TO
5.1%
XQQ.TO
12.2%

Healthcare

GCNS.TO
4.8%
XQQ.TO
4.2%

Communication Services

GCNS.TO
3.3%
XQQ.TO
15.8%

Real Estate

GCNS.TO
3.2%
XQQ.TO
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

GCNS.TO
2.7%
XQQ.TO
7.7%

Utilities

GCNS.TO
0.6%
XQQ.TO
1.4%

Energy

GCNS.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.6%

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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.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
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.59
2.45

-0.86

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.32
3.20

-0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.42

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.80

3.03

-0.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.32

11.31

-1.99

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. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is lower than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCNS.TO and XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.59

2.45

-0.86

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

0.68

+0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.89

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

0.86

+0.06

Drawdowns

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.37%, smaller than the maximum XQQ.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCNS.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GCNS.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.37%

-38.55%

+23.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.81%

-12.76%

+7.95%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.38%

-22.72%

+15.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.37%

-38.55%

+23.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-38.55%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.27%

+0.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.56%

-5.92%

+2.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

3.41%

-1.97%

Volatility

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) is 2.47%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that GCNS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GCNS.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.47%

4.48%

-2.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

12.00%

-6.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.49%

15.82%

-7.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.20%

22.52%

-14.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.83%

22.34%

-14.51%

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

GCNS.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

GCNS.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

GCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% 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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

GCNS.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GCNS.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GCNS.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

GCNS.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GCNS.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCNS.TO and XQQ.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