PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XCNS.TO (iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) and MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XCNS.TO returned 5.71%/yr vs 12.14%/yr for MGRW.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (XCNS.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCNS.TO achieves a 5.57% return, which is significantly lower than MGRW.TO's 9.90% return.

XCNS.TO

1D
-0.26%
1M
3.19%
YTD
5.57%
6M
4.19%
1Y
12.72%
3Y*
10.96%
5Y*
5.71%
10Y*
—

MGRW.TO

1D
0.05%
1M
4.67%
YTD
9.90%
6M
10.22%
1Y
25.89%
3Y*
19.61%
5Y*
12.14%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XCNS.TO
iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		5.57%9.44%11.73%10.66%-11.25%5.93%4.39%
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		9.90%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%

Correlation

The correlation between XCNS.TO and MGRW.TO is 0.58, 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

0.58

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

0.51

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

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2020

0.47

The correlation between XCNS.TO and MGRW.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (all time) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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 Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF

Often compared with XCNS.TO:
XCNS.TO vs. XBAL.TOXCNS.TO vs. XINC.TOXCNS.TO vs. VCNS.TOXCNS.TO vs. XEQT.TOXCNS.TO vs. GCNS.TOXCNS.TO vs. XGRO.TOXCNS.TO vs. XTR.TO
Often compared with MGRW.TO:
MGRW.TO vs. MAAA.TOMGRW.TO vs. PYF.TOMGRW.TO vs. QDXH.TOMGRW.TO vs. VGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. QTIP.NEOMGRW.TO vs. TGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. WSHR.NEO

Return for Risk

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XCNS.TO
XCNS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
XCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCNS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCNS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
XCNS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCNS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO
MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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.

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (XCNS.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.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.

XCNS.TOMGRW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.92
2.64

-0.72

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.75
3.96

-1.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.56

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.63

3.87

-1.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.25

15.91

-5.66

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

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCNS.TO and MGRW.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

XCNS.TOMGRW.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.92

2.64

-0.72

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

1.14

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.86

1.25

-0.40

Drawdowns

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -16.96%, roughly equal to the maximum MGRW.TO drawdown of -17.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCNS.TO and MGRW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XCNS.TOMGRW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.96%

-17.20%

+0.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.86%

-6.72%

+1.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.40%

-12.17%

+5.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.09%

-17.20%

+1.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.79%

0.00%

-0.79%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.49%

-3.37%

-0.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.24%

1.63%

-0.39%

Volatility

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (XCNS.TO) is 3.14%, while Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a volatility of 3.39%. This indicates that XCNS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MGRW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XCNS.TOMGRW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.14%

3.39%

-0.25%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.72%

8.09%

-2.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.67%

9.87%

-3.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.86%

10.68%

-3.82%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.61%

10.49%

-2.88%

Dividends

XCNS.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Dividend Comparison

XCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, more than MGRW.TO's 1.73% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.73%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%0.00%
XCNS.TO
iShares Core Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.50%2.55%2.58%2.49%2.26%1.81%2.15%0.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

XCNS.TO and MGRW.TO have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Mackenzie.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCNS.TO and MGRW.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