PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

QEBL.TO vs. MGRW.TO

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

QEBL.TO (Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF) and MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QEBL.TO is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while MGRW.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Mackenzie. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QEBL.TO returned 6.34%/yr vs 11.39%/yr for MGRW.TO. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

QEBL.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF (QEBL.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QEBL.TO achieves a 3.20% return, which is significantly lower than MGRW.TO's 10.77% return.

QEBL.TO

1D
-0.08%
1M
0.18%
6M
1.26%
YTD
3.20%
1Y
7.60%
3Y*
10.31%
5Y*
6.34%
10Y*
—

MGRW.TO

1D
0.38%
1M
1.12%
6M
8.14%
YTD
10.77%
1Y
23.31%
3Y*
18.65%
5Y*
11.39%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
QEBL.TO
Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF		3.20%12.49%9.72%12.50%-3.05%-7.85%3.88%
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		10.77%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%

Correlation

The correlation between QEBL.TO and MGRW.TO is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.22

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

0.13

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

0.13

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2020

0.12

The correlation between QEBL.TO and MGRW.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), 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.

Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF

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

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
QEBL.TO
QEBL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
QEBL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QEBL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
QEBL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
QEBL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
QEBL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO
MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF (QEBL.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.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.

QEBL.TOMGRW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.91
2.29

-1.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.38
3.43

-2.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.47

-0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.22

3.49

-2.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.73

14.04

-10.31

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

The current QEBL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is lower than the MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QEBL.TO and MGRW.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...

Drawdowns

QEBL.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QEBL.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.84%, which is greater than MGRW.TO's maximum drawdown of -17.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QEBL.TO and MGRW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QEBL.TOMGRW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.84%

-17.20%

-3.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.24%

-6.72%

+0.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.01%

-12.17%

+5.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.35%

-17.20%

-0.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.18%

-1.08%

-0.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.16%

-3.32%

-1.84%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.04%

1.67%

+0.37%

Volatility

QEBL.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF (QEBL.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) have volatilities of 2.50% and 2.41%, 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

QEBL.TOMGRW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.50%

2.41%

+0.09%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.78%

8.45%

-1.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.41%

10.23%

-1.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.13%

10.76%

-0.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.56%

10.48%

+0.08%

Dividends

QEBL.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Dividend Comparison

QEBL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.25%, more than MGRW.TO's 1.71% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.71%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%0.00%
QEBL.TO
Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF		5.25%5.45%4.83%22.34%5.90%6.08%4.30%0.69%

Frequently Asked Questions

QEBL.TO and MGRW.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.

QEBL.TO is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while MGRW.TO is Diversified Portfolio.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QEBL.TO and MGRW.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