PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XFH.TO (iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and MEQT.TO (Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF) are both Global Equities funds. XFH.TO is passively managed, while MEQT.TO is actively managed. Over the past year, XFH.TO returned 23.32% vs 33.14% for MEQT.TO. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XFH.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for MEQT.TO.

Performance

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) and Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XFH.TO achieves a 9.98% return, which is significantly lower than MEQT.TO's 13.57% return.

XFH.TO

1D
0.70%
1M
3.65%
YTD
9.98%
6M
11.71%
1Y
23.32%
3Y*
16.60%
5Y*
10.31%
10Y*
10.20%

MEQT.TO

1D
0.62%
1M
6.20%
YTD
13.57%
6M
13.49%
1Y
33.14%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
XFH.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		9.98%21.68%11.68%3.32%
MEQT.TO
Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF		13.57%21.31%25.87%2.16%

Correlation

The correlation between XFH.TO and MEQT.TO is 0.61, 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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 21, 2023

0.40

Over the past year, XFH.TO and MEQT.TO have become more correlated (0.61) than their long-term average of 0.40, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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 EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF

Often compared with XFH.TO:
XFH.TO vs. XEF.TOXFH.TO vs. XIN.TOXFH.TO vs. XLCXFH.TO vs. VIU.TOXFH.TO vs. VEQT.TOXFH.TO vs. QQC.TOXFH.TO vs. VOO
Often compared with MEQT.TO:
MEQT.TO vs. VXC.TOMEQT.TO vs. ZEQT.TOMEQT.TO vs. XEQT.TOMEQT.TO vs. CAGE.TOMEQT.TO vs. FCIN.NEOMEQT.TO vs. TINF.TOMEQT.TO vs. XDG.TO

Return for Risk

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XFH.TO
XFH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
XFH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
MEQT.TO
MEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
MEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
MEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
MEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
MEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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.

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) and Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.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.

XFH.TOMEQT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.95
3.05

-1.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.78
4.35

-1.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.60

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

4.33

-1.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.02

18.64

-8.62

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

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XFH.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is lower than the MEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFH.TO and MEQT.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

XFH.TOMEQT.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

3.05

-1.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.51

2.14

-1.64

Drawdowns

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFH.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.85%, which is greater than MEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFH.TO and MEQT.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XFH.TOMEQT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.85%

-15.14%

-18.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.63%

-7.68%

-1.95%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.14%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.59%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.85%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.60%

0.00%

-0.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.61%

-1.29%

-4.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.33%

1.78%

+0.55%

Volatility

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.TO) at 2.93%. This indicates that XFH.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XFH.TOMEQT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.93%

2.93%

+1.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.87%

9.02%

+0.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.01%

10.93%

+1.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.03%

11.86%

+2.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.16%

11.86%

+4.30%

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XFH.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than MEQT.TO's 0.17% 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

XFH.TO vs. MEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison

XFH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, more than MEQT.TO's 1.44% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MEQT.TO
Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF		1.44%1.60%1.73%0.81%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XFH.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.96%2.16%2.47%2.91%2.91%2.29%1.73%2.43%2.66%2.11%2.03%2.45%

Frequently Asked Questions

XFH.TO and MEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for XFH.TO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Mackenzie Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for XFH.TO and 0.17% for MEQT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFH.TO and MEQT.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