PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) and FBAL.NEO (Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XBAL.TO returned 8.15%/yr vs 10.75%/yr for FBAL.NEO. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XBAL.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for FBAL.NEO.

Performance

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBAL.TO achieves a 7.81% return, which is significantly higher than FBAL.NEO's 6.89% return.

XBAL.TO

1D
-0.36%
1M
4.13%
YTD
7.81%
6M
6.00%
1Y
17.48%
3Y*
14.21%
5Y*
8.15%
10Y*
7.69%

FBAL.NEO

1D
-0.26%
1M
2.74%
YTD
6.89%
6M
6.75%
1Y
16.29%
3Y*
16.09%
5Y*
10.75%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		7.81%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%8.50%
FBAL.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF		6.89%12.92%19.42%13.96%-7.02%11.50%

Correlation

The correlation between XBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.90

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

0.90

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

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021

0.82

The correlation between XBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XBAL.TO
FBAL.NEO

Technology

21.6%
20.6%

Financial Services

20.5%
22.2%

Industrials

12.4%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
7.7%

Energy

7.5%
4.4%

Basic Materials

7.4%
9.7%

Healthcare

6.6%
4.4%

Communication Services

6.4%
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
5.5%

Utilities

2.9%
4.6%

Real Estate

2.3%
4.7%

Technology

XBAL.TO
21.6%
FBAL.NEO
20.6%

Financial Services

XBAL.TO
20.5%
FBAL.NEO
22.2%

Industrials

XBAL.TO
12.4%
FBAL.NEO
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

XBAL.TO
8.0%
FBAL.NEO
7.7%

Energy

XBAL.TO
7.5%
FBAL.NEO
4.4%

Basic Materials

XBAL.TO
7.4%
FBAL.NEO
9.7%

Healthcare

XBAL.TO
6.6%
FBAL.NEO
4.4%

Communication Services

XBAL.TO
6.4%
FBAL.NEO
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

XBAL.TO
4.6%
FBAL.NEO
5.5%

Utilities

XBAL.TO
2.9%
FBAL.NEO
4.6%

Real Estate

XBAL.TO
2.3%
FBAL.NEO
4.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF

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
Often compared with FBAL.NEO:
FBAL.NEO vs. VBAL.TOFBAL.NEO vs. FGRO.NEOFBAL.NEO vs. AMBFXFBAL.NEO vs. FBALXFBAL.NEO vs. ZBAL.TOFBAL.NEO vs. MAW120.TOFBAL.NEO vs. HDIF.TO

Return for Risk

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
FBAL.NEO
FBAL.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
FBAL.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FBAL.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
FBAL.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
FBAL.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
FBAL.NEO 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.

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.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.

XBAL.TOFBAL.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.06
2.17

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.87
3.11

-0.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.42

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

2.71

+0.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.15

11.32

+0.83

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

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the FBAL.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBAL.TO and FBAL.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XBAL.TOFBAL.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.06

2.17

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

1.26

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.82

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.68

1.22

-0.55

Drawdowns

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.83%, which is greater than FBAL.NEO's maximum drawdown of -13.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBAL.TOFBAL.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.83%

-13.83%

-15.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.06%

-6.04%

-0.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.35%

-8.29%

-1.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.12%

-13.83%

-3.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.93%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.36%

-0.45%

+0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.39%

-2.43%

-0.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.44%

1.44%

0.00%

Volatility

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.14% compared to Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF (FBAL.NEO) at 2.78%. This indicates that XBAL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBAL.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBAL.TOFBAL.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.14%

2.78%

+0.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.21%

6.08%

+1.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.51%

7.54%

+0.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.79%

8.58%

+0.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.37%

8.57%

+0.80%

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBAL.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FBAL.NEO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBAL.TO vs. FBAL.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, more than FBAL.NEO's 1.51% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FBAL.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Balanced ETF		1.51%1.61%1.42%1.71%4.48%1.08%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.10%2.24%2.68%2.40%2.09%1.74%1.99%2.26%3.39%2.93%3.64%3.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBAL.TO and FBAL.NEO have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XBAL.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for FBAL.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XBAL.TO and 0.40% for FBAL.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBAL.TO and FBAL.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