PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

QEBL.TO (Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF) and QTIP.NEO (Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - QEBL.TO is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while QTIP.NEO is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Solactive US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Hedged to CAD TR Index. QEBL.TO is actively managed, while QTIP.NEO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QEBL.TO returned 6.34%/yr vs -0.43%/yr for QTIP.NEO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - 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 US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO). 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 higher than QTIP.NEO's 0.24% 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*
—

QTIP.NEO

1D
0.22%
1M
-0.60%
6M
-0.27%
YTD
0.24%
1Y
1.67%
3Y*
2.34%
5Y*
-0.43%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
QEBL.TO
Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF		3.20%12.49%9.72%12.50%-3.05%-7.85%1.00%2.04%
QTIP.NEO
Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.24%4.82%0.82%3.16%-12.98%6.05%9.48%0.47%

Correlation

The correlation between QEBL.TO and QTIP.NEO is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.10

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

0.11

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

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2019

0.07

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 US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with QTIP.NEO:
QTIP.NEO vs. ZTIP.TOQTIP.NEO vs. QDXH.TOQTIP.NEO vs. QDX.TOQTIP.NEO vs. WSHR.NEOQTIP.NEO vs. MGRW.TOQTIP.NEO vs. MAAA.TOQTIP.NEO vs. XSTH.TO

Return for Risk

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO — 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
QTIP.NEO
QTIP.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
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. QTIP.NEO - 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 US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO). 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.TOQTIP.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.91
0.42

+0.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.38
0.62

+0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.07

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.22

0.77

+0.45

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.73

1.77

+1.96

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QEBL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.91, which is higher than the QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 0.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QEBL.TO and QTIP.NEO, 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. QTIP.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QEBL.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.84%, which is greater than QTIP.NEO's maximum drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QEBL.TO and QTIP.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QEBL.TOQTIP.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.84%

-15.31%

-5.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.24%

-2.02%

-4.22%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.01%

-4.79%

-2.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.35%

-15.31%

-2.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.18%

-4.99%

+3.81%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.16%

-4.89%

-0.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.04%

0.88%

+1.16%

Volatility

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond Index ETF (QEBL.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.50% compared to Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO) at 1.20%. This indicates that QEBL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QTIP.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QEBL.TOQTIP.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.50%

1.20%

+1.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.78%

2.73%

+4.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.41%

3.68%

+4.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.13%

6.23%

+3.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.56%

6.29%

+4.27%

Dividends

QEBL.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Dividend Comparison

QEBL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.25%, more than QTIP.NEO's 4.02% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
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%0.00%
QTIP.NEO
Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		4.02%4.54%4.53%4.76%9.47%5.24%1.55%2.29%2.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

QEBL.TO and QTIP.NEO have a correlation of 0.10, 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 QTIP.NEO is Inflation-Protected Bonds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QEBL.TO and QTIP.NEO

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