PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Canadian Government Bond Index ETF (XGB.TO) and Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc (VGVF.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XGB.TO is traded in CAD, while VGVF.DE is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the VGVF.DE values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XGB.TO achieves a 1.57% return, which is significantly lower than VGVF.DE's 13.02% return.


XGB.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
1.53%
YTD
1.57%
6M
0.83%
1Y
2.46%
3Y*
3.58%
5Y*
0.13%
10Y*
1.06%

VGVF.DE

1D
0.07%
1M
6.72%
YTD
13.02%
6M
12.63%
1Y
30.77%
3Y*
22.86%
5Y*
15.32%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XGB.TO
iShares Core Canadian Government Bond Index ETF
1.57%1.65%3.54%5.57%-12.25%-3.11%5.31%
VGVF.DE
Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc
13.02%17.41%27.46%21.42%-13.19%21.10%10.41%

Correlation

The correlation between XGB.TO and VGVF.DE is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.31

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

0.19

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

0.14

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2020

0.09

Over the past year, XGB.TO and VGVF.DE have become more correlated (0.31) than their long-term average of 0.09, 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.


Return for Risk

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE — Risk / Return Rank

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

XGB.TO
XGB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
XGB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
XGB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
Martin Ratio Rank

VGVF.DE
VGVF.DE Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
VGVF.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VGVF.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
VGVF.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
VGVF.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
VGVF.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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.

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Canadian Government Bond Index ETF (XGB.TO) and Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc (VGVF.DE). 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.


XGB.TOVGVF.DEDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.10

1.47

-0.38

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.86

4.25

-3.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.86

16.94

-15.08

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XGB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.55, which is lower than the VGVF.DE Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGB.TO and VGVF.DE, 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


XGB.TOVGVF.DEDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.55

2.62

-2.07

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.02

1.11

-1.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.52

0.95

-0.43

Drawdowns

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGB.TO drawdown since its inception was -19.53%, smaller than the maximum VGVF.DE drawdown of -27.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGB.TO and VGVF.DE.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XGB.TOVGVF.DEDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.53%

-27.72%

+8.19%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.86%

-7.20%

+4.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.83%

-19.14%

+13.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.44%

-21.36%

+4.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-19.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.25%

-0.20%

-5.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.94%

-4.57%

+0.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.33%

1.81%

-0.48%

Volatility

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Canadian Government Bond Index ETF (XGB.TO) is 1.71%, while Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc (VGVF.DE) has a volatility of 3.07%. This indicates that XGB.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VGVF.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XGB.TOVGVF.DEDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.71%

3.07%

-1.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.49%

8.59%

-5.10%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.52%

11.69%

-7.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.92%

13.64%

-6.72%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.99%

15.27%

-9.28%

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

XGB.TO has a 0.13% expense ratio, which is higher than VGVF.DE's 0.12% 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

XGB.TO vs. VGVF.DE - Dividend Comparison

XGB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.11%, while VGVF.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
VGVF.DE
Vanguard FTSE Developed World UCITS ETF Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XGB.TO
iShares Core Canadian Government Bond Index ETF
3.11%3.11%2.95%2.73%2.64%2.25%2.12%2.32%2.44%2.41%2.53%2.62%

Frequently Asked Questions


XGB.TO and VGVF.DE have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VGVF.DE is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VGVF.DE is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.13% for XGB.TO.

XGB.TO is categorized as Canadian Government Bonds, while VGVF.DE is Global Equities. XGB.TO tracks Morningstar Can Core Bd GR CAD, while VGVF.DE tracks FTSE Developed. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.13% for XGB.TO and 0.12% for VGVF.DE.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGB.TO and VGVF.DE

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