PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XGRO.TO (iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio) and CSBG.NEO (CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XGRO.TO returned 18.10%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for CSBG.NEO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XGRO.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for CSBG.NEO.

Performance

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) and CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF (CSBG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

XGRO.TO

1D
0.29%
1M
5.00%
YTD
10.70%
6M
8.71%
1Y
23.83%
3Y*
18.10%
5Y*
10.89%
10Y*
10.17%

CSBG.NEO

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
0.00%
6M
0.00%
1Y
0.00%
3Y*
0.80%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		10.70%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%4.88%
CSBG.NEO
CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF		0.00%0.00%1.17%1.22%1.69%2.60%

Correlation

The correlation between XGRO.TO and CSBG.NEO is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 20, 2021

0.03

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 Growth ETF Portfolio

CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF

Often compared with XGRO.TO:
XGRO.TO vs. XEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. VGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. VEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. XCG.TOXGRO.TO vs. TGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. ZGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. XAW.TO
Often compared with CSBG.NEO:
CSBG.NEO vs. CEQT.TOCSBG.NEO vs. GRO.TOCSBG.NEO vs. PYF.TOCSBG.NEO vs. TCON.TOCSBG.NEO vs. HBAL.TOCSBG.NEO vs. ATMPCSBG.NEO vs. CCAD.TO

Return for Risk

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XGRO.TO
XGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
CSBG.NEO
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.

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) and CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF (CSBG.NEO). 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.

XGRO.TOCSBG.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.22

—

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13

—

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

—

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.36

—

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.92

—

—

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

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XGRO.TOCSBG.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.22

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

1.08

-0.72

Drawdowns

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -47.97%, which is greater than CSBG.NEO's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGRO.TO and CSBG.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XGRO.TOCSBG.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.97%

0.00%

-47.97%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.12%

0.00%

-7.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.47%

0.00%

-12.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.40%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.85%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.49%

0.00%

-8.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.60%

0.00%

+1.60%

Volatility

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.40% compared to CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF (CSBG.NEO) at 0.00%. This indicates that XGRO.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSBG.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XGRO.TOCSBG.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.40%

0.00%

+3.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.20%

0.00%

+9.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.78%

0.00%

+10.78%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.05%

1.27%

+9.78%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.26%

1.27%

+10.99%

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XGRO.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CSBG.NEO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

XGRO.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, while CSBG.NEO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CSBG.NEO
CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF		0.00%0.00%1.16%1.21%1.66%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		1.75%1.92%1.98%2.22%1.86%1.66%1.94%2.21%7.42%2.04%2.65%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

XGRO.TO and CSBG.NEO have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XGRO.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XGRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CSBG.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and CIBC. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XGRO.TO and 0.90% for CSBG.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGRO.TO and CSBG.NEO

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