PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Capped Financials Index ETF (XFN.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XFN.TO achieves a 12.51% return, which is significantly lower than XBM.TO's 38.48% return. Over the past 10 years, XFN.TO has underperformed XBM.TO with an annualized return of 14.38%, while XBM.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.17% annualized return.


XFN.TO

1D
-0.55%
1M
5.10%
YTD
12.51%
6M
17.66%
1Y
41.54%
3Y*
29.67%
5Y*
16.93%
10Y*
14.38%

XBM.TO

1D
-3.17%
1M
21.23%
YTD
38.48%
6M
46.72%
1Y
119.30%
3Y*
29.93%
5Y*
19.70%
10Y*
20.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XFN.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Financials Index ETF
12.51%34.40%29.32%13.09%-9.92%35.57%0.99%20.66%-9.76%12.54%
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF
38.48%50.69%5.96%2.84%3.69%32.04%31.54%9.93%-22.39%32.45%

Correlation

The correlation between XFN.TO and XBM.TO is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.42

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

0.46

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

0.50

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

0.50

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 20, 2011

0.49

The correlation between XFN.TO and XBM.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.42 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XFN.TO
XBM.TO

Financial Services

100.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

99.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

0.2%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

XFN.TO
100.0%
XBM.TO

-

Basic Materials

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO
99.8%

Communication Services

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Energy

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Healthcare

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Industrials

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO
0.2%

Real Estate

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Technology

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Utilities

XFN.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XFN.TO
XFN.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
XFN.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFN.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFN.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
XFN.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFN.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

XBM.TO
XBM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
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.

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Financials Index ETF (XFN.TO) and iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.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.


XFN.TOXBM.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.61

1.49

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.35

5.02

+0.33

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.60

19.44

+2.17

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XFN.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.46, which is comparable to the XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFN.TO and XBM.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


XFN.TOXBM.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.46

3.37

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.26

0.60

+0.66

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.87

0.62

+0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.64

0.25

+0.39

Drawdowns

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFN.TO drawdown since its inception was -56.55%, smaller than the maximum XBM.TO drawdown of -67.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFN.TO and XBM.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XFN.TOXBM.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.55%

-67.40%

+10.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.80%

-23.88%

+16.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.37%

-37.45%

+25.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.90%

-40.57%

+18.67%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.93%

-57.24%

+17.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.39%

-3.17%

+1.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.60%

-25.80%

+19.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.93%

6.16%

-4.23%

Volatility

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Financials Index ETF (XFN.TO) is 4.19%, while iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a volatility of 13.03%. This indicates that XFN.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XFN.TOXBM.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.19%

13.03%

-8.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.10%

29.68%

-19.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.07%

35.62%

-23.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.47%

33.06%

-19.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.53%

32.66%

-16.13%

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XFN.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than XBM.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

XFN.TO vs. XBM.TO - Dividend Comparison

XFN.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.17%, more than XBM.TO's 0.62% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF
0.62%0.86%1.25%2.09%4.83%3.01%1.81%3.71%3.43%1.63%2.42%5.70%
XFN.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Financials Index ETF
2.17%2.39%3.16%3.60%3.48%2.67%3.35%3.00%3.43%2.73%2.83%3.17%

Frequently Asked Questions


XFN.TO and XBM.TO have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XBM.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBM.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for XFN.TO.

XFN.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while XBM.TO is Energy Equities. XFN.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD, while XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for XFN.TO and 0.60% for XBM.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFN.TO and XBM.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