PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

MGRW.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) and GBAL.TO (iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MGRW.TO returned 12.14%/yr vs 9.01%/yr for GBAL.TO. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

MGRW.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.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, MGRW.TO achieves a 9.90% return, which is significantly higher than GBAL.TO's 9.21% return.

MGRW.TO

1D
0.05%
1M
4.67%
YTD
9.90%
6M
10.22%
1Y
25.89%
3Y*
19.61%
5Y*
12.14%
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)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		9.90%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		9.21%11.77%17.38%14.48%-11.94%11.32%4.98%

Correlation

The correlation between MGRW.TO and GBAL.TO is 0.61, 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

0.61

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

0.57

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

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2020

0.53

The correlation between MGRW.TO and GBAL.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF

iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with MGRW.TO:
MGRW.TO vs. MAAA.TOMGRW.TO vs. PYF.TOMGRW.TO vs. QDXH.TOMGRW.TO vs. VGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. QTIP.NEOMGRW.TO vs. TGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. WSHR.NEO
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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MGRW.TO
MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.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.

MGRW.TOGBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.64
1.91

+0.73

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.96
2.78

+1.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.56

1.36

+0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.87

2.81

+1.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.91

11.18

+4.74

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

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

The current MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is higher than the GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGRW.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

MGRW.TOGBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.64

1.91

+0.73

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.14

0.93

+0.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.25

1.03

+0.22

Drawdowns

MGRW.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGRW.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.20%, smaller than the maximum GBAL.TO drawdown of -18.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGRW.TO and GBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MGRW.TOGBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.20%

-18.92%

+1.72%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.72%

-6.40%

-0.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.17%

-10.24%

-1.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.20%

-18.92%

+1.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.24%

+0.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.37%

-4.30%

+0.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.63%

1.61%

+0.02%

Volatility

MGRW.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.39% compared to iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) at 3.20%. This indicates that MGRW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MGRW.TOGBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.39%

3.20%

+0.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.09%

7.87%

+0.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.87%

9.42%

+0.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.68%

9.70%

+0.98%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.49%

9.54%

+0.95%

Dividends

MGRW.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

MGRW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, 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%
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.73%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

MGRW.TO and GBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.61, 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: Mackenzie and iShares.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MGRW.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