PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XBM.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO returned 20.17%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - 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 iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO). 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 higher than XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XBM.TO having a 20.17% annualized return and XQQ.TO not far behind at 19.70%.

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%

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF		38.48%50.69%5.96%2.84%3.69%32.04%31.54%9.93%-22.39%32.45%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%37.48%-2.33%31.83%

Correlation

The correlation between XBM.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.54

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

0.48

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

0.47

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

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2011

0.45

The correlation between XBM.TO and XQQ.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XBM.TO
XQQ.TO

Basic Materials

99.8%
1.1%

Industrials

0.2%
3.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

7.7%

Energy

-

0.6%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

53.7%

Utilities

-

1.4%

Basic Materials

XBM.TO
99.8%
XQQ.TO
1.1%

Industrials

XBM.TO
0.2%
XQQ.TO
3.1%

Communication Services

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
12.2%

Consumer Defensive

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
7.7%

Energy

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.6%

Financial Services

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.2%

Healthcare

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
4.2%

Real Estate

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
0.1%

Technology

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
53.7%

Utilities

XBM.TO

-

XQQ.TO
1.4%

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

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO — 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
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO 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.

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.

XBM.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.37
2.45

+0.92

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.67
3.20

+0.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.42

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.02

3.03

+1.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.44

11.31

+8.13

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. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is higher than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBM.TO and XQQ.TO, 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.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.37

2.45

+0.92

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.60

0.68

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

0.89

-0.26

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.25

0.86

-0.61

Drawdowns

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBM.TO drawdown since its inception was -67.40%, which is greater than XQQ.TO's maximum drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBM.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBM.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.40%

-38.55%

-28.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.88%

-12.76%

-11.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.45%

-22.72%

-14.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.57%

-38.55%

-2.02%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.24%

-38.55%

-18.69%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.17%

-0.27%

-2.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.80%

-5.92%

-19.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.16%

3.41%

+2.75%

Volatility

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) at 4.48%. This indicates that XBM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBM.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.03%

4.48%

+8.55%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.68%

12.00%

+17.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

35.62%

15.82%

+19.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.06%

22.52%

+10.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.66%

22.34%

+10.32%

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBM.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBM.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, more than XQQ.TO's 0.21% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

XBM.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XBM.TO.

XBM.TO is categorized as Energy Equities, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XBM.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBM.TO and XQQ.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