PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GGRO.TO (iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio) and XINC.TO (iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds from iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GGRO.TO returned 11.20%/yr vs 3.19%/yr for XINC.TO. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GGRO.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XINC.TO.

Performance

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) and iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGRO.TO achieves a 11.48% return, which is significantly higher than XINC.TO's 3.53% return.

GGRO.TO

1D
-0.04%
1M
6.33%
YTD
11.48%
6M
8.73%
1Y
22.29%
3Y*
18.93%
5Y*
11.20%
10Y*
—

XINC.TO

1D
0.09%
1M
2.26%
YTD
3.53%
6M
3.10%
1Y
8.23%
3Y*
7.73%
5Y*
3.19%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GGRO.TO
iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio		11.48%14.24%20.48%19.18%-14.11%15.52%7.20%
XINC.TO
iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio		3.53%6.71%7.76%8.51%-11.25%1.27%2.06%

Correlation

The correlation between GGRO.TO and XINC.TO is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.64

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

0.48

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

0.43

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2020

0.44

Over the past year, GGRO.TO and XINC.TO have become more correlated (0.64) than their long-term average of 0.44, meaning their price movements have been converging.

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GGRO.TO
XINC.TO

Technology

27.5%
4.8%

Financial Services

23.1%
4.3%

Industrials

7.0%
1.9%

Basic Materials

5.7%
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

3.8%
1.4%

Healthcare

3.7%
1.2%

Real Estate

2.3%
0.3%

Communication Services

2.3%
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
0.9%

Utilities

0.8%
0.5%

Energy

0.0%
1.5%

Technology

GGRO.TO
27.5%
XINC.TO
4.8%

Financial Services

GGRO.TO
23.1%
XINC.TO
4.3%

Industrials

GGRO.TO
7.0%
XINC.TO
1.9%

Basic Materials

GGRO.TO
5.7%
XINC.TO
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

GGRO.TO
3.8%
XINC.TO
1.4%

Healthcare

GGRO.TO
3.7%
XINC.TO
1.2%

Real Estate

GGRO.TO
2.3%
XINC.TO
0.3%

Communication Services

GGRO.TO
2.3%
XINC.TO
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

GGRO.TO
2.2%
XINC.TO
0.9%

Utilities

GGRO.TO
0.8%
XINC.TO
0.5%

Energy

GGRO.TO
0.0%
XINC.TO
1.5%

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 Growth ETF Portfolio

iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with GGRO.TO:
GGRO.TO vs. VGRO.TOGGRO.TO vs. VFV.TOGGRO.TO vs. XEQT.TOGGRO.TO vs. GEQT.TOGGRO.TO vs. ESGGGGRO.TO vs. GBAL.TOGGRO.TO vs. ESG
Often compared with XINC.TO:
XINC.TO vs. XCNS.TOXINC.TO vs. VFV.TOXINC.TO vs. XEQT.TOXINC.TO vs. XGRO.TOXINC.TO vs. XSUS.TOXINC.TO vs. ZMMK.TOXINC.TO vs. XBAL.TO

Return for Risk

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GGRO.TO
GGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
GGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
XINC.TO
XINC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
XINC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
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.

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) and iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.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.

GGRO.TOXINC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.88
1.68

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.61
2.44

+0.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.33

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

2.26

+0.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.66

8.54

+3.11

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

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the XINC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGRO.TO and XINC.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

GGRO.TOXINC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.88

1.68

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

0.50

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.07

0.56

+0.51

Drawdowns

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.13%, which is greater than XINC.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRO.TO and XINC.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GGRO.TOXINC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.13%

-15.40%

-6.73%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.74%

-3.65%

-4.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.78%

-4.36%

-9.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.13%

-15.40%

-6.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.66%

-0.05%

-0.61%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.96%

-3.74%

-1.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.92%

0.97%

+0.95%

Volatility

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.84% compared to iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) at 1.92%. This indicates that GGRO.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XINC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GGRO.TOXINC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.84%

1.92%

+1.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.82%

4.13%

+5.69%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.91%

4.93%

+6.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.76%

6.42%

+5.34%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.57%

6.73%

+4.84%

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGRO.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XINC.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

GGRO.TO vs. XINC.TO - Dividend Comparison

GGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than XINC.TO's 3.19% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
GGRO.TO
iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio		1.38%1.51%1.62%1.89%1.69%1.43%0.83%0.00%
XINC.TO
iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio		3.19%3.16%2.81%2.87%2.54%2.02%2.40%0.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

GGRO.TO and XINC.TO have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XINC.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for GGRO.TO.

Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GGRO.TO and 0.20% for XINC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GGRO.TO and XINC.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