PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRO.TO (Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio) and GBAL.TO (iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GRO.TO returned 23.55% vs 17.91% for GBAL.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRO.TO charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for GBAL.TO.

Performance

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRO.TO achieves a 8.77% return, which is significantly lower than GBAL.TO's 9.21% return.

GRO.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
4.49%
YTD
8.77%
6M
11.39%
1Y
23.55%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

GBAL.TO

1D
-0.24%
1M
5.86%
YTD
9.21%
6M
7.46%
1Y
17.91%
3Y*
15.59%
5Y*
9.01%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024
GRO.TO
Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio		8.77%11.09%15.17%
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		9.21%11.77%7.78%

Correlation

The correlation between GRO.TO and GBAL.TO is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.11

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

0.08

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio

iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio

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
Often compared with GBAL.TO:
GBAL.TO vs. XBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. EAORGBAL.TO vs. GEQT.TOGBAL.TO vs. XIN.TOGBAL.TO vs. GGRO.TOGBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. VFV.TO

Return for Risk

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
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
GBAL.TO
GBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBAL.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.

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

GRO.TOGBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.00
1.91

+1.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
5.66
2.78

+2.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

3.54

1.36

+2.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.07

2.81

+1.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.41

11.18

+8.24

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

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is higher than the GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRO.TO and GBAL.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

GRO.TOGBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.00

1.91

+1.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.93

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.54

1.03

+0.50

Drawdowns

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -12.96%, smaller than the maximum GBAL.TO drawdown of -18.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRO.TO and GBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GRO.TOGBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-12.96%

-18.92%

+5.96%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.81%

-6.40%

+0.59%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-10.24%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-18.92%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.19%

-0.24%

+0.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.25%

-4.30%

+3.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.22%

1.61%

-0.39%

Volatility

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO) and iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) have volatilities of 3.33% and 3.20%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GRO.TOGBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.33%

3.20%

+0.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.61%

7.87%

-1.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.88%

9.42%

-1.54%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.89%

9.70%

+2.19%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.89%

9.54%

+2.35%

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

GRO.TO has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is lower than GBAL.TO's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GRO.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

GRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than GBAL.TO's 1.71% yield.

PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		1.71%1.83%1.84%2.40%1.87%1.43%0.96%
GRO.TO
Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio		2.13%2.04%1.50%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

GRO.TO and GBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.11, 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 GBAL.TO.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GRO.TO and GBAL.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