PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XBM.TO vs. XLF

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBM.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO returned 19.65%/yr vs 14.30%/yr for XLF. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.

Performance

XBM.TO vs. XLF - 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 State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XBM.TO is traded in CAD, while XLF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XLF values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBM.TO achieves a 31.10% return, which is significantly higher than XLF's -0.12% return. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO has outperformed XLF with an annualized return of 19.65%, while XLF has yielded a comparatively lower 14.30% annualized return.

XBM.TO

1D
2.73%
1M
0.78%
YTD
31.10%
6M
38.65%
1Y
104.78%
3Y*
26.59%
5Y*
17.84%
10Y*
19.65%

XLF

1D
1.55%
1M
6.03%
YTD
-0.12%
6M
-0.69%
1Y
11.41%
3Y*
20.64%
5Y*
12.35%
10Y*
14.30%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
XLF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF		-0.12%9.66%41.61%9.36%-4.92%34.73%-4.07%26.44%-5.75%13.74%

Correlation

The correlation between XBM.TO and XLF is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.28

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

0.30

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

0.41

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 19, 2011

0.39

The correlation between XBM.TO and XLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.45 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XBM.TO
XLF

Basic Materials

99.8%

-

Industrials

0.2%
0.2%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

98.0%

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

1.8%

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

XBM.TO
99.8%
XLF

-

Industrials

XBM.TO
0.2%
XLF
0.2%

Communication Services

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Consumer Cyclical

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Consumer Defensive

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Energy

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Financial Services

XBM.TO

-

XLF
98.0%

Healthcare

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Real Estate

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

Technology

XBM.TO

-

XLF
1.8%

Utilities

XBM.TO

-

XLF

-

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

State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR 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. XMA.TOXBM.TO vs. VDE
Often compared with XLF:
XLF vs. SPYXLF vs. VFHXLF vs. KBWBXLF vs. XLVXLF vs. KREXLF vs. KBEXLF vs. JPM

Return for Risk

XBM.TO vs. XLF — 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: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank
XLF
XLF Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
XLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLF Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
XLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLF Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
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. XLF - 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 State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). 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.TOXLFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.76
0.56

+2.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.09
0.86

+2.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.11

+0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.35

0.59

+3.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.08

1.47

+14.61

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.76, which is higher than the XLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBM.TO and XLF, 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

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBM.TO drawdown since its inception was -67.53%, smaller than the maximum XLF drawdown of -80.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBM.TO and XLF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBM.TOXLFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.53%

-80.96%

+13.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.88%

-14.50%

-9.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.45%

-17.20%

-20.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.57%

-23.97%

-16.60%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.25%

-37.86%

-19.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.34%

-3.56%

-4.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.09%

-22.57%

-3.52%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.46%

5.86%

+0.60%

Volatility

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.03% compared to State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) at 4.51%. This indicates that XBM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBM.TOXLFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.03%

4.51%

+12.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.15%

11.91%

+20.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

37.63%

15.35%

+22.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.55%

19.50%

+14.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.88%

22.97%

+9.91%

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBM.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBM.TO vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison

XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, less than XLF's 1.49% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XLF
State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF		1.49%1.31%1.42%1.71%2.04%1.63%2.03%1.87%2.08%1.48%21.10%1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBM.TO and XLF have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XBM.TO.

XBM.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while XLF is Financials Equities. XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XBM.TO and 0.08% for XLF.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBM.TO and XLF

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