XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO
XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and CEW.TO (iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBM.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while CEW.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO returned 19.65%/yr vs 16.02%/yr for CEW.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for CEW.TO.
Performance
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XBM.TO achieves a 31.10% return, which is significantly higher than CEW.TO's 22.02% return. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO has outperformed CEW.TO with an annualized return of 19.65%, while CEW.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 16.02% annualized return.
XBM.TO
- 1D
- 2.73%
- 1M
- -1.40%
- YTD
- 31.10%
- 6M
- 38.65%
- 1Y
- 103.40%
- 3Y*
- 26.59%
- 5Y*
- 17.84%
- 10Y*
- 19.65%
CEW.TO
- 1D
- 1.03%
- 1M
- 9.08%
- YTD
- 22.02%
- 6M
- 20.13%
- 1Y
- 51.89%
- 3Y*
- 31.90%
- 5Y*
- 19.14%
- 10Y*
- 16.02%
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 31.10% | 50.69% | 5.96% | 2.84% | 3.63% | 27.94% | 31.53% | 9.95% | -22.42% | 32.48% |
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF | 22.02% | 32.70% | 29.62% | 17.18% | -6.76% | 29.51% | -0.38% | 25.64% | -12.71% | 12.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between XBM.TO and CEW.TO is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 19, 2011 | 0.47 |
The correlation between XBM.TO and CEW.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (1 year) to 0.48 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XBM.TO
CEW.TO
Basic Materials
-
Industrials
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
XBM.TO
CEW.TO
-
Industrials
XBM.TO
CEW.TO
-
Communication Services
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Consumer Cyclical
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Consumer Defensive
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Energy
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Financial Services
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
Healthcare
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Real Estate
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Technology
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Utilities
XBM.TO
-
CEW.TO
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XBM.TO
CEW.TO
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) and iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.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.
| XBM.TO | CEW.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.68 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.82 | -0.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.35 | 7.32 | -2.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.08 | 27.01 | -10.93 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XBM.TO drawdown since its inception was -67.53%, which is greater than CEW.TO's maximum drawdown of -53.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBM.TO and CEW.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XBM.TO | CEW.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.53% | -53.50% | -14.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.88% | -7.13% | -16.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -37.45% | -12.72% | -24.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.57% | -22.41% | -18.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -57.25% | -43.66% | -13.59% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.34% | 0.00% | -8.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.09% | -6.94% | -19.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.46% | 1.93% | +4.53% |
Volatility
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.03% compared to iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) at 3.79%. This indicates that XBM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XBM.TO | CEW.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.03% | 3.79% | +13.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.15% | 10.17% | +21.98% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 37.63% | 11.74% | +25.89% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.55% | 13.57% | +19.98% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.88% | 17.06% | +15.82% |
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XBM.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CEW.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.
Dividends
XBM.TO vs. CEW.TO - Dividend Comparison
XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, less than CEW.TO's 2.34% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF | 2.34% | 2.82% | 3.41% | 3.98% | 3.95% | 3.10% | 3.83% | 3.39% | 3.13% | 2.62% | 2.70% | 2.91% |
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 0.65% | 0.86% | 1.25% | 2.09% | 4.78% | 3.05% | 1.81% | 3.73% | 3.38% | 1.65% | 2.41% | 5.75% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XBM.TO and CEW.TO have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XBM.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XBM.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for CEW.TO.
XBM.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while CEW.TO is Financials Equities. XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while CEW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XBM.TO and 0.61% for CEW.TO.
Find the right allocation for XBM.TO and CEW.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