PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XFH.TO vs. XDG.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

XFH.TO (iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XDG.TO (iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF) are both Global Equities funds from iShares - XFH.TO tracks the Morningstar DM xNA GR CAD while XDG.TO tracks the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XFH.TO returned 10.59%/yr vs 11.08%/yr for XDG.TO. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.22% expense ratio.

Performance

XFH.TO vs. XDG.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 iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (XDG.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 10.88% return, which is significantly lower than XDG.TO's 12.19% return.

XFH.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
0.21%
YTD
10.88%
6M
10.77%
1Y
24.97%
3Y*
17.42%
5Y*
10.59%
10Y*
11.20%

XDG.TO

1D
0.64%
1M
0.85%
YTD
12.19%
6M
10.60%
1Y
20.71%
3Y*
15.76%
5Y*
11.08%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XFH.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		10.88%21.68%12.60%18.31%-6.58%12.30%0.97%23.27%-10.81%6.61%
XDG.TO
iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF		12.19%12.26%14.74%7.06%1.78%15.16%-1.68%17.32%0.95%2.14%

Correlation

The correlation between XFH.TO and XDG.TO is 0.62, 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

0.62

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

0.61

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2017

0.63

The correlation between XFH.TO and XDG.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

XFH.TO vs. XDG.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XFH.TO
XDG.TO

Financial Services

22.6%
13.7%

Industrials

20.3%
11.7%

Technology

11.3%
6.7%

Healthcare

9.6%
21.1%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%
9.6%

Basic Materials

6.8%
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%
14.5%

Communication Services

4.7%
3.2%

Energy

3.7%
11.2%

Utilities

3.6%
5.8%

Real Estate

2.9%
0.1%

Financial Services

XFH.TO
22.6%
XDG.TO
13.7%

Industrials

XFH.TO
20.3%
XDG.TO
11.7%

Technology

XFH.TO
11.3%
XDG.TO
6.7%

Healthcare

XFH.TO
9.6%
XDG.TO
21.1%

Consumer Cyclical

XFH.TO
8.3%
XDG.TO
9.6%

Basic Materials

XFH.TO
6.8%
XDG.TO
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

XFH.TO
6.3%
XDG.TO
14.5%

Communication Services

XFH.TO
4.7%
XDG.TO
3.2%

Energy

XFH.TO
3.7%
XDG.TO
11.2%

Utilities

XFH.TO
3.6%
XDG.TO
5.8%

Real Estate

XFH.TO
2.9%
XDG.TO
0.1%

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)

iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF

Often compared with XFH.TO:
XFH.TO vs. XEF.TOXFH.TO vs. XIN.TOXFH.TO vs. XLCXFH.TO vs. VIU.TOXFH.TO vs. QQC.TOXFH.TO vs. VEQT.TOXFH.TO vs. VOO
Often compared with XDG.TO:
XDG.TO vs. XDIV.TOXDG.TO vs. XEQT.TOXDG.TO vs. XAW.TOXDG.TO vs. XDU.TOXDG.TO vs. XDGH.TOXDG.TO vs. CYH.TOXDG.TO vs. SCHD

Return for Risk

XFH.TO vs. XDG.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: 6868
Overall Rank
XFH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
XDG.TO
XDG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
XDG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
XDG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
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. XDG.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 iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (XDG.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.

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.

XFH.TOXDG.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.00
1.99

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.84
2.87

-0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.34

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.60

2.64

-0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.69

9.37

+1.32

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

The current XFH.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the XDG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFH.TO and XDG.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...

Drawdowns

XFH.TO vs. XDG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFH.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.85%, which is greater than XDG.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFH.TO and XDG.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XFH.TOXDG.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.85%

-27.08%

-6.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.64%

-7.87%

-1.77%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.14%

-12.33%

-1.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.52%

-12.33%

-8.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.85%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.54%

0.00%

-1.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.08%

-3.12%

-2.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.34%

2.21%

+0.13%

Volatility

XFH.TO vs. XDG.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.21% compared to iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF (XDG.TO) at 2.62%. This indicates that XFH.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XDG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XFH.TOXDG.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.21%

2.62%

+1.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.54%

8.24%

+2.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.52%

10.46%

+2.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.07%

11.10%

+2.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.99%

13.86%

+2.13%

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

Both XFH.TO and XDG.TO have an expense ratio of 0.22%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XFH.TO vs. XDG.TO - Dividend Comparison

XFH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, less than XDG.TO's 2.75% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XDG.TO
iShares Core MSCI Global Quality Dividend Index ETF		2.75%2.92%2.96%3.13%3.27%2.97%3.27%3.18%3.47%1.67%0.00%0.00%
XFH.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.95%2.16%2.47%2.93%2.93%2.38%1.85%2.60%2.86%2.26%2.17%2.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

XFH.TO and XDG.TO have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.22% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XFH.TO and XDG.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.22% per year.

XFH.TO tracks Morningstar DM xNA GR CAD, while XDG.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFH.TO and XDG.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