PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and NNRG.NEO (Ninepoint Energy ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - XBM.TO tracks the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD while NNRG.NEO tracks the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XBM.TO returned 19.70%/yr vs 33.81%/yr for NNRG.NEO. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.79%/yr for NNRG.NEO.

Performance

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBM.TO achieves a 38.48% return, which is significantly lower than NNRG.NEO's 45.59% return.

XBM.TO

1D
-3.17%
1M
21.23%
YTD
38.48%
6M
46.72%
1Y
119.30%
3Y*
29.93%
5Y*
19.70%
10Y*
20.17%

NNRG.NEO

1D
1.60%
1M
-1.33%
YTD
45.59%
6M
38.09%
1Y
66.96%
3Y*
26.11%
5Y*
33.81%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF		38.48%50.69%5.96%2.84%3.69%-3.23%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		45.59%19.14%13.26%-4.21%66.18%55.91%

Correlation

The correlation between XBM.TO and NNRG.NEO is -0.05, 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

-0.05

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

0.27

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

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2021

0.40

The correlation between XBM.TO and NNRG.NEO shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.40 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XBM.TO
NNRG.NEO

Basic Materials

99.8%

-

Industrials

0.2%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

100.0%

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

XBM.TO
99.8%
NNRG.NEO

-

Industrials

XBM.TO
0.2%
NNRG.NEO

-

Communication Services

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Consumer Defensive

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Energy

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO
100.0%

Financial Services

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Healthcare

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Real Estate

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Technology

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Utilities

XBM.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF

Ninepoint Energy ETF

Often compared with XBM.TO:
XBM.TO vs. XMEXBM.TO vs. ZMT.TOXBM.TO vs. XEG.TOXBM.TO vs. XETM.TOXBM.TO vs. GDXXBM.TO vs. VDEXBM.TO vs. XMA.TO
Often compared with NNRG.NEO:
NNRG.NEO vs. XEG.TONNRG.NEO vs. DXMO.TONNRG.NEO vs. EFX.TONNRG.NEO vs. ENCC.TONNRG.NEO vs. IXCNNRG.NEO vs. CIF.TONNRG.NEO vs. FRU.TO

Return for Risk

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XBM.TO
XBM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO
NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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.

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - 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 Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.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.

XBM.TONNRG.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.37
2.74

+0.63

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.67
3.29

+0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.45

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.02

6.21

-1.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.44

13.09

+6.35

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

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is comparable to the NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBM.TO and NNRG.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

XBM.TONNRG.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.37

2.74

+0.63

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.60

0.98

-0.38

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.25

1.07

-0.82

Drawdowns

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBM.TO drawdown since its inception was -67.40%, which is greater than NNRG.NEO's maximum drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBM.TO and NNRG.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBM.TONNRG.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.40%

-35.78%

-31.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.88%

-10.84%

-13.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.45%

-23.52%

-13.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.57%

-35.78%

-4.79%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.24%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.17%

-4.70%

+1.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.80%

-9.58%

-16.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.16%

5.13%

+1.03%

Volatility

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) at 10.24%. This indicates that XBM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NNRG.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBM.TONNRG.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.03%

10.24%

+2.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.68%

20.69%

+8.99%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

35.62%

24.53%

+11.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.06%

34.60%

-1.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.66%

34.56%

-1.90%

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBM.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than NNRG.NEO's 1.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBM.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, more than NNRG.NEO's 0.51% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		0.51%0.37%0.39%0.38%9.08%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF		0.62%0.86%1.25%2.09%4.83%3.01%1.81%3.71%3.43%1.63%2.42%5.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBM.TO and NNRG.NEO have a correlation of -0.05, 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 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while NNRG.NEO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Ninepoint. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XBM.TO and 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBM.TO and NNRG.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