PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XFH.TO vs. XML.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XFH.TO (iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XML.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both Global Equities funds from iShares - XFH.TO tracks the Morningstar DM xNA GR CAD while XML.TO tracks the MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XFH.TO returned 10.20%/yr vs 7.35%/yr for XML.TO. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XFH.TO charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for XML.TO.

Performance

XFH.TO vs. XML.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 MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.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 higher than XML.TO's 3.89% return. Over the past 10 years, XFH.TO has outperformed XML.TO with an annualized return of 10.20%, while XML.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 7.35% annualized 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%

XML.TO

1D
-0.12%
1M
-0.03%
YTD
3.89%
6M
5.30%
1Y
9.96%
3Y*
13.01%
5Y*
9.34%
10Y*
7.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XFH.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		9.98%21.68%11.68%18.28%-6.60%12.13%0.84%23.05%-10.97%17.50%
XML.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		3.89%17.56%14.13%11.69%-6.94%13.27%-5.87%16.26%-3.28%15.15%

Correlation

The correlation between XFH.TO and XML.TO is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.41

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

0.41

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

0.45

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

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 12, 2016

0.55

The correlation between XFH.TO and XML.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.55 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
XFH.TO
XML.TO

Financial Services

22.9%
19.9%

Industrials

20.5%
15.1%

Technology

10.2%
4.5%

Healthcare

9.8%
12.4%

Consumer Cyclical

8.2%
5.2%

Basic Materials

6.6%
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.4%
11.5%

Communication Services

4.5%
9.7%

Energy

4.0%
8.2%

Utilities

3.8%
9.1%

Real Estate

3.1%
2.9%

Financial Services

XFH.TO
22.9%
XML.TO
19.9%

Industrials

XFH.TO
20.5%
XML.TO
15.1%

Technology

XFH.TO
10.2%
XML.TO
4.5%

Healthcare

XFH.TO
9.8%
XML.TO
12.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XFH.TO
8.2%
XML.TO
5.2%

Basic Materials

XFH.TO
6.6%
XML.TO
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

XFH.TO
6.4%
XML.TO
11.5%

Communication Services

XFH.TO
4.5%
XML.TO
9.7%

Energy

XFH.TO
4.0%
XML.TO
8.2%

Utilities

XFH.TO
3.8%
XML.TO
9.1%

Real Estate

XFH.TO
3.1%
XML.TO
2.9%

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 MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 XML.TO:
XML.TO vs. XIN.TOXML.TO vs. XMI.TOXML.TO vs. XMU.TOXML.TO vs. HXQ.TOXML.TO vs. XSP.TOXML.TO vs. XEQT.TOXML.TO vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

XFH.TO vs. XML.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
XML.TO
XML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
XML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
XML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
XML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
XML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
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. XML.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 MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.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.TOXML.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.95
1.15

+0.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.78
1.63

+1.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.23

+0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

2.00

+0.43

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.02

5.42

+4.60

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. XML.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XFH.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is higher than the XML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFH.TO and XML.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.TOXML.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

1.15

+0.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

0.97

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

0.61

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.51

0.62

-0.11

Drawdowns

XFH.TO vs. XML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFH.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.85%, which is greater than XML.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFH.TO and XML.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XFH.TOXML.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.85%

-28.62%

-5.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.63%

-4.88%

-4.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.14%

-7.46%

-6.68%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.59%

-12.34%

-8.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.85%

-28.62%

-5.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.60%

-4.26%

+3.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.61%

-3.41%

-2.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.33%

1.80%

+0.53%

Volatility

XFH.TO vs. XML.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.93% compared to iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.TO) at 2.60%. This indicates that XFH.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XFH.TOXML.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.93%

2.60%

+1.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.87%

6.48%

+3.39%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.01%

8.50%

+3.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.03%

9.70%

+4.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.16%

12.09%

+4.07%

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

XFH.TO has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than XML.TO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

XFH.TO vs. XML.TO - Dividend Comparison

XFH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, less than XML.TO's 2.66% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XML.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		2.66%2.76%2.67%2.56%2.02%1.92%1.11%3.62%2.77%1.92%3.34%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

XFH.TO and XML.TO have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XFH.TO is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XFH.TO is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for XML.TO.

XFH.TO tracks Morningstar DM xNA GR CAD, while XML.TO tracks MSCI EAFE Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for XFH.TO and 0.40% for XML.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFH.TO and XML.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