PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XDGH.TO vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XDGH.TO (iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XDGH.TO is a Global Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XDGH.TO returned 8.12%/yr vs 8.48%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XDGH.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XDGH.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDGH.TO achieves a 7.16% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.66% return.

XDGH.TO

1D
0.16%
1M
2.01%
YTD
7.16%
6M
8.39%
1Y
17.12%
3Y*
12.90%
5Y*
8.12%
10Y*
—

ACWV

1D
-0.21%
1M
3.02%
YTD
3.66%
6M
2.16%
1Y
6.14%
3Y*
11.34%
5Y*
8.48%
10Y*
8.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XDGH.TO
iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		7.16%14.60%10.46%8.74%-1.32%15.60%-4.34%22.32%-4.99%2.63%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.66%5.95%20.95%5.85%-3.97%12.94%1.30%15.09%6.94%5.17%

Correlation

The correlation between XDGH.TO and ACWV is 0.52, 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

0.52

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

0.51

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

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2017

0.43

The correlation between XDGH.TO and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XDGH.TO
ACWV

Healthcare

16.9%
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

14.8%
10.3%

Financial Services

13.2%
13.1%

Industrials

12.6%
7.9%

Energy

10.3%
3.4%

Technology

9.6%
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
5.1%

Utilities

5.6%
7.8%

Communication Services

3.3%
12.2%

Basic Materials

2.4%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.8%

Healthcare

XDGH.TO
16.9%
ACWV
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

XDGH.TO
14.8%
ACWV
10.3%

Financial Services

XDGH.TO
13.2%
ACWV
13.1%

Industrials

XDGH.TO
12.6%
ACWV
7.9%

Energy

XDGH.TO
10.3%
ACWV
3.4%

Technology

XDGH.TO
9.6%
ACWV
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

XDGH.TO
9.4%
ACWV
5.1%

Utilities

XDGH.TO
5.6%
ACWV
7.8%

Communication Services

XDGH.TO
3.3%
ACWV
12.2%

Basic Materials

XDGH.TO
2.4%
ACWV
1.8%

Real Estate

XDGH.TO
0.2%
ACWV
0.8%

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 MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with XDGH.TO:
XDGH.TO vs. XDG.TOXDGH.TO vs. XHD.TOXDGH.TO vs. XEQT.TOXDGH.TO vs. XDUH.TOXDGH.TO vs. VFV.TOXDGH.TO vs. VIDY.TOXDGH.TO vs. VDY.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XDGH.TO
XDGH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
XDGH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDGH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDGH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
XDGH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDGH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XDGH.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

XDGH.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.78
0.79

+0.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.69
1.15

+1.54

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.14

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.69

1.21

+1.48

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.01

3.17

+4.84

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

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDGH.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDGH.TO and ACWV, 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

XDGH.TOACWVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.78

0.79

+0.99

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.67

0.98

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.75

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

1.01

-0.47

Drawdowns

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDGH.TO drawdown since its inception was -32.99%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -22.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDGH.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XDGH.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.99%

-22.14%

-10.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.38%

-5.09%

-1.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.96%

-8.31%

-3.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.56%

-14.16%

-0.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-22.14%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.25%

-1.08%

-1.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.63%

-2.53%

-1.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.14%

1.94%

+0.20%

Volatility

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XDGH.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.55% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.76%. This indicates that XDGH.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XDGH.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.55%

1.76%

+0.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.84%

5.85%

+0.99%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.67%

7.81%

+1.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.14%

8.68%

+3.46%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.60%

10.95%

+3.65%

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDGH.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XDGH.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

XDGH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.81%, more than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.04%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
XDGH.TO
iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		2.81%2.81%3.04%3.41%3.18%3.05%3.24%2.82%3.29%0.81%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

XDGH.TO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for XDGH.TO.

XDGH.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. XDGH.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.22% for XDGH.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XDGH.TO and ACWV

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