PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XGRO.TO (iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio) and XBAL.TO (iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds from iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, XGRO.TO returned 10.17%/yr vs 7.68%/yr for XBAL.TO. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.

Performance

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XGRO.TO achieves a 10.70% return, which is significantly higher than XBAL.TO's 8.30% return. Over the past 10 years, XGRO.TO has outperformed XBAL.TO with an annualized return of 10.17%, while XBAL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 7.68% annualized return.

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%

XBAL.TO

1D
0.45%
1M
4.08%
YTD
8.30%
6M
6.25%
1Y
17.97%
3Y*
14.47%
5Y*
8.24%
10Y*
7.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		10.70%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%14.29%11.51%17.97%-6.73%11.61%
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		8.30%11.87%15.76%13.01%-11.19%10.11%10.67%15.28%-2.80%5.48%

Correlation

The correlation between XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.93

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

0.96

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

0.94

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2007

0.68

Over the past year, XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO have become more correlated (0.93) than their long-term average of 0.68, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XGRO.TO
XBAL.TO

Technology

25.8%
21.6%

Financial Services

20.3%
20.5%

Industrials

7.3%
12.4%

Energy

7.2%
7.5%

Communication Services

6.8%
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

6.3%
8.0%

Basic Materials

5.6%
7.4%

Healthcare

5.1%
6.6%

Consumer Defensive

3.8%
4.6%

Utilities

1.5%
2.9%

Real Estate

0.4%
2.3%

Technology

XGRO.TO
25.8%
XBAL.TO
21.6%

Financial Services

XGRO.TO
20.3%
XBAL.TO
20.5%

Industrials

XGRO.TO
7.3%
XBAL.TO
12.4%

Energy

XGRO.TO
7.2%
XBAL.TO
7.5%

Communication Services

XGRO.TO
6.8%
XBAL.TO
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XGRO.TO
6.3%
XBAL.TO
8.0%

Basic Materials

XGRO.TO
5.6%
XBAL.TO
7.4%

Healthcare

XGRO.TO
5.1%
XBAL.TO
6.6%

Consumer Defensive

XGRO.TO
3.8%
XBAL.TO
4.6%

Utilities

XGRO.TO
1.5%
XBAL.TO
2.9%

Real Estate

XGRO.TO
0.4%
XBAL.TO
2.3%

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

iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio

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 XBAL.TO:
XBAL.TO vs. XEQT.TOXBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. XCNS.TOXBAL.TO vs. XEI.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZBAL.TOXBAL.TO vs. ZLB.TOXBAL.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Return for Risk

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO — 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
XBAL.TO
XBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

XGRO.TOXBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.22
2.12

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
2.94

+0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.40

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.36

2.98

+0.38

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.92

12.49

+2.43

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. XBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the XBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGRO.TO and XBAL.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

XGRO.TOXBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.22

2.12

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

0.94

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

0.82

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.68

-0.33

Drawdowns

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -47.97%, which is greater than XBAL.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XGRO.TOXBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.97%

-28.83%

-19.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.12%

-6.06%

-1.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.47%

-9.35%

-3.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.40%

-17.12%

-1.28%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.85%

-20.93%

-4.92%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.49%

-3.39%

-5.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.60%

1.44%

+0.16%

Volatility

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.40% compared to iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio (XBAL.TO) at 3.14%. This indicates that XGRO.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XGRO.TOXBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.40%

3.14%

+0.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.20%

7.22%

+1.98%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.78%

8.52%

+2.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.05%

8.79%

+2.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.26%

9.37%

+2.89%

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XGRO.TO vs. XBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

XGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than XBAL.TO's 2.09% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XBAL.TO
iShares Core Balanced ETF Portfolio		2.09%2.24%2.68%2.40%2.09%1.74%1.99%2.26%3.39%2.93%3.64%3.29%
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

With a correlation of 0.93, XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Both ETFs have the same 0.20% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XGRO.TO and XBAL.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.20% per year.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGRO.TO and XBAL.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