LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO
LONG.TO (CI Global Longevity Economy Fund) and XHC.TO (iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. LONG.TO is actively managed, while XHC.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LONG.TO returned 10.40%/yr vs 3.60%/yr for XHC.TO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LONG.TO achieves a 7.64% return, which is significantly higher than XHC.TO's 1.77% return.
LONG.TO
- 1D
- 0.82%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 7.64%
- 6M
- 7.66%
- 1Y
- 21.51%
- 3Y*
- 17.35%
- 5Y*
- 10.40%
- 10Y*
- —
XHC.TO
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- 5.81%
- YTD
- 1.77%
- 6M
- 1.52%
- 1Y
- 15.74%
- 3Y*
- 5.07%
- 5Y*
- 3.60%
- 10Y*
- 7.31%
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LONG.TO CI Global Longevity Economy Fund | 7.64% | 6.19% | 25.86% | 19.50% | -9.01% | 11.77% | 22.32% |
XHC.TO iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.77% | 10.91% | 1.22% | 2.14% | -3.57% | 17.32% | 9.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between LONG.TO and XHC.TO is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.11 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2020 | 0.07 |
The correlation between LONG.TO and XHC.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO — Risk / Return Rank
LONG.TO
XHC.TO
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Longevity Economy Fund (LONG.TO) and iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| LONG.TO | XHC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.19 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.46 | 1.46 | -0.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.21 | 3.49 | +1.73 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LONG.TO drawdown since its inception was -23.65%, smaller than the maximum XHC.TO drawdown of -27.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LONG.TO and XHC.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LONG.TO | XHC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.65% | -27.28% | +3.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.39% | -10.79% | -5.60% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.45% | -18.81% | -3.64% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.65% | -18.81% | -4.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -27.28% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.91% | -2.66% | +0.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.66% | -5.17% | -0.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.58% | 4.53% | +0.05% |
Volatility
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Global Longevity Economy Fund (LONG.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.73% compared to iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XHC.TO) at 5.17%. This indicates that LONG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XHC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LONG.TO | XHC.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.73% | 5.17% | +1.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.94% | 11.08% | +2.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.87% | 14.93% | +1.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.38% | 14.09% | +3.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.72% | 15.79% | +1.93% |
Dividends
LONG.TO vs. XHC.TO - Dividend Comparison
LONG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XHC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.90%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LONG.TO CI Global Longevity Economy Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XHC.TO iShares Global Healthcare Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.90% | 1.87% | 4.42% | 2.38% | 0.84% | 0.80% | 0.97% | 1.07% | 1.68% | 1.14% | 1.63% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LONG.TO and XHC.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.
They also come from different issuers: CI and iShares.
Find the right allocation for LONG.TO and XHC.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