PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO).

MGRW.TO and XBAL.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. MGRW.TO is an actively managed fund by Mackenzie. It was launched on Sep 29, 2020. XBAL.TO is an actively managed fund by iShares. It was launched on Jun 21, 2007.

Performance

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.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 Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		-2.32%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		0.29%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%10.11%6.12%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGRW.TO achieves a -2.32% return, which is significantly lower than XBAL.TO's 0.29% return.

MGRW.TO

1D
0.12%
1M
-6.17%
YTD
-2.32%
6M
0.61%
1Y
14.96%
3Y*
15.18%
5Y*
9.95%
10Y*
—

XBAL.TO

1D
1.71%
1M
-3.45%
YTD
0.29%
6M
0.54%
1Y
11.30%
3Y*
11.77%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
7.19%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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 Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with MGRW.TO:
MGRW.TO vs. QTIP.NEOMGRW.TO vs. QDXH.TOMGRW.TO vs. VGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. PYF.TOMGRW.TO vs. QQQQ.TOMGRW.TO vs. MIX.TOMGRW.TO vs. VBAL.TO
Often compared with XBAL.TO:
XBAL.TO vs. XEQT.TOXBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. XCNS.TOXBAL.TO vs. XEI.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZLB.TOXBAL.TO vs. GBAL.TO

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

XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

Return for Risk

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.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: 6767
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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. XBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.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.TOXBAL.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.35

1.11

+0.24

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.85

1.53

+0.31

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.23

+0.05

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.50

1.53

-0.03

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

6.48

6.31

+0.17

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. XBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is comparable to the XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGRW.TO and XBAL.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

MGRW.TOXBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.35

1.11

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

0.81

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.78

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.08

0.64

+0.44

Correlation

The correlation between MGRW.TO and XBAL.TO is 0.46, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

MGRW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, less than XBAL.TO's 2.25% yield.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.94%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.25%2.24%2.68%2.40%2.09%1.74%1.99%2.26%3.39%2.93%3.64%3.29%

Drawdowns

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGRW.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.20%, smaller than the maximum XBAL.TO drawdown of -28.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGRW.TO and XBAL.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

MGRW.TOXBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.20%

-28.83%

+11.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-7.68%

-1.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.20%

-17.12%

-0.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-20.93%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.60%

-3.84%

-2.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.45%

-3.41%

-0.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.18%

1.86%

+0.32%

Volatility

MGRW.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) is 3.65%, while iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) has a volatility of 4.28%. This indicates that MGRW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

MGRW.TOXBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.65%

4.28%

-0.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.07%

6.56%

+0.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.14%

10.21%

+0.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.43%

8.64%

+1.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.37%

9.27%

+1.10%