PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

XIC.TO (iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF) and FLVC.NEO (Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF) are both Canada Equities funds - XIC.TO tracks the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index while FLVC.NEO tracks the Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XIC.TO returned 33.33% vs 36.38% for FLVC.NEO. Their 0.39 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. XIC.TO charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FLVC.NEO.

Performance

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) and Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF (FLVC.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XIC.TO achieves a 12.55% return, which is significantly lower than FLVC.NEO's 21.78% return.

XIC.TO

1D
-0.76%
1M
0.04%
6M
10.65%
YTD
12.55%
1Y
33.33%
3Y*
23.01%
5Y*
14.56%
10Y*
12.41%
ALL TIME*
9.28%

FLVC.NEO

1D
0.33%
1M
3.35%
6M
21.86%
YTD
21.78%
1Y
36.38%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
24.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

FLVC.NEO

Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF
CA$134.83KCA$145.15KCA$488.47K

XIC.TO

iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF
CA$23.72MCA$28.51MCA$27.00M

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		12.55%31.51%15.45%
FLVC.NEO
Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF		21.78%21.15%13.79%

Correlation

The correlation between XIC.TO and FLVC.NEO is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024

0.39

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XIC.TO
FLVC.NEO

Financial Services

36.2%
43.0%

Energy

16.6%
8.8%

Basic Materials

16.0%
0.4%

Industrials

10.5%
13.7%

Technology

7.2%
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

3.9%
7.0%

Utilities

3.3%
10.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
6.9%

Communication Services

1.6%
7.5%

Real Estate

1.5%

-

Healthcare

0.2%

-

Financial Services

XIC.TO
36.2%
FLVC.NEO
43.0%

Energy

XIC.TO
16.6%
FLVC.NEO
8.8%

Basic Materials

XIC.TO
16.0%
FLVC.NEO
0.4%

Industrials

XIC.TO
10.5%
FLVC.NEO
13.7%

Technology

XIC.TO
7.2%
FLVC.NEO
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

XIC.TO
3.9%
FLVC.NEO
7.0%

Utilities

XIC.TO
3.3%
FLVC.NEO
10.8%

Consumer Defensive

XIC.TO
2.9%
FLVC.NEO
6.9%

Communication Services

XIC.TO
1.6%
FLVC.NEO
7.5%

Real Estate

XIC.TO
1.5%
FLVC.NEO

-

Healthcare

XIC.TO
0.2%
FLVC.NEO

-

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 S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF

Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF

Often compared with XIC.TO:
XIC.TO vs. XIU.TOXIC.TO vs. VDY.TOXIC.TO vs. ZCN.TOXIC.TO vs. VCE.TOXIC.TO vs. XEF.TOXIC.TO vs. VEQT.TOXIC.TO vs. XUS-U.TO
Often compared with FLVC.NEO:
FLVC.NEO vs. FCRI.TOFLVC.NEO vs. XCV.TOFLVC.NEO vs. FLVI.NEOFLVC.NEO vs. QCE.TOFLVC.NEO vs. QCN.TOFLVC.NEO vs. CBNK.TOFLVC.NEO vs. FCMI.TO

Return for Risk

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
XIC.TO
XIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
FLVC.NEO
FLVC.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
FLVC.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLVC.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLVC.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
FLVC.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLVC.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) and Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF (FLVC.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

XIC.TOFLVC.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.42
5.06

-2.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
7.66

-4.54

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

2.02

-0.60

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.47

12.45

-8.98

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.70

55.03

-39.34

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is lower than the FLVC.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 5.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XIC.TO and FLVC.NEO, 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...

Drawdowns

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XIC.TO drawdown since its inception was -47.27%, which is greater than FLVC.NEO's maximum drawdown of -7.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XIC.TO and FLVC.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XIC.TOFLVC.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.27%

-7.89%

-39.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.29%

-3.21%

-6.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.27%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.24%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.21%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.56%

-0.50%

-1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.72%

-0.80%

-5.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.05%

0.71%

+1.34%

Volatility

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.10% compared to Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF (FLVC.NEO) at 2.84%. This indicates that XIC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLVC.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XIC.TOFLVC.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.10%

2.84%

+0.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.35%

5.74%

+4.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.34%

7.91%

+5.43%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.23%

11.38%

+1.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.96%

11.38%

+3.58%

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XIC.TO has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than FLVC.NEO's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XIC.TO vs. FLVC.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XIC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.00%, less than FLVC.NEO's 4.70% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLVC.NEO
Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index ETF		4.70%4.96%0.95%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		2.00%2.23%2.64%2.96%3.10%2.45%3.03%3.01%3.19%2.49%2.72%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

XIC.TO and FLVC.NEO have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XIC.TO is cheaper at 0.06% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XIC.TO is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for FLVC.NEO.

XIC.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index, while FLVC.NEO tracks Franklin Canadian Low Volatility High Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for XIC.TO and 0.15% for FLVC.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XIC.TO and FLVC.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