MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) and RIRA.TO (Russell Investments Real Assets) are both exchange-traded funds - MGRW.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while RIRA.TO is a Infrastructure Equities fund actively managed by Russell. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MGRW.TO returned 11.35%/yr vs 7.27%/yr for RIRA.TO. Their 0.31 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. MGRW.TO charges 0.18%/yr vs 1.31%/yr for RIRA.TO.

Performance

MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and Russell Investments Real Assets (RIRA.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGRW.TO achieves a 10.74% return, which is significantly lower than RIRA.TO's 16.48% return.

MGRW.TO

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -1.05%
• 6M: 8.72%
• YTD: 10.74%
• 1Y: 22.91%
• 3Y*: 18.18%
• 5Y*: 11.35%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.87%

RIRA.TO

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 0.94%
• 6M: 10.26%
• YTD: 16.48%
• 1Y: 25.19%
• 3Y*: 13.11%
• 5Y*: 7.27%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.03%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
MGRW.TO Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF	CA$72.01K	CA$77.36K	CA$75.63K
RIRA.TO Russell Investments Real Assets	CA$51.49K	CA$40.31K	CA$51.03K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MGRW.TO Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF	10.74%	18.19%	21.41%	15.35%	-9.30%	13.37%	7.50%
RIRA.TO Russell Investments Real Assets	16.48%	10.46%	8.03%	4.50%	-8.47%	17.83%	5.43%

Correlation

The correlation between MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO is 0.22, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2020	0.31

The correlation between MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.22 (1 year) to 0.34 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MGRW.TO

MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 84
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 84

RIRA.TO

RIRA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 93
RIRA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
RIRA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
RIRA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 91
RIRA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RIRA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 94

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and Russell Investments Real Assets (RIRA.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.

	MGRW.TO	RIRA.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	2.55	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.58	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.46	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	5.32	-2.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.74	19.31	-6.57

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

The current MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the RIRA.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGRW.TO and RIRA.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.

Drawdowns

MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGRW.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.20%, smaller than the maximum RIRA.TO drawdown of -25.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MGRW.TO	RIRA.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.20%	-25.82%	+8.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.72%	-4.40%	-2.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.17%	-12.05%	-0.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.20%	-16.56%	-0.64%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.11%	-1.88%	+0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.30%	-6.10%	+2.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.70%	1.22%	+0.48%

Volatility

MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.99% compared to Russell Investments Real Assets (RIRA.TO) at 2.35%. This indicates that MGRW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RIRA.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MGRW.TO	RIRA.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.99%	2.35%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.57%	6.62%	+1.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.45%	9.20%	+1.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.78%	12.70%	-1.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.49%	13.82%	-3.33%

MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGRW.TO has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than RIRA.TO's 1.31% expense ratio.

Dividends

MGRW.TO vs. RIRA.TO - Dividend Comparison

MGRW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than RIRA.TO's 3.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MGRW.TO Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF	1.71%	1.84%	1.93%	2.28%	2.44%	1.77%	0.79%
RIRA.TO Russell Investments Real Assets	3.86%	4.27%	4.31%	6.16%	6.34%	3.95%	4.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO in my portfolio?

MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MGRW.TO or RIRA.TO?

On fees, MGRW.TO is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MGRW.TO or RIRA.TO?

MGRW.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 1.31% for RIRA.TO.

What is the main difference between MGRW.TO and RIRA.TO?

MGRW.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while RIRA.TO is Infrastructure Equities. They also come from different issuers: Mackenzie and Russell. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for MGRW.TO and 1.31% for RIRA.TO.