XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XIN.TO) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO).
XIN.TO and XFH.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XIN.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI EAFE 100% Hedged to CAD Index. It was launched on Sep 6, 2001. XFH.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar DM xNA GR CAD. It was launched on Feb 10, 2015. Both XIN.TO and XFH.TO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: XIN.TO or XFH.TO.
Key characteristics
| XIN.TO | XFH.TO | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 11.64% | 11.62% |
| 1Y Return | 17.43% | 17.86% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 7.26% | 5.08% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 8.33% | 7.34% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.66 | 1.70 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.24 | 2.29 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.30 | 1.31 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.92 | 2.04 |
| Martin Ratio | 8.67 | 9.64 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.03% | 1.87% |
| Daily Std Dev | 10.63% | 10.65% |
| Max Drawdown | -58.56% | -33.85% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.87% | -2.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between XIN.TO and XFH.TO is 0.90, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with XIN.TO having a 11.64% return and XFH.TO slightly lower at 11.62%. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XIN.TO has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is higher than XFH.TO's 0.22% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XIN.TO) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.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.
Dividends
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Dividend Comparison
XIN.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, less than XFH.TO's 2.84% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XIN.TO iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.44% | 2.51% | 2.18% | 2.65% | 1.81% | 2.58% | 2.85% | 2.16% | 2.41% | 2.32% | 2.83% | 2.17% |
XFH.TO iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.84% | 2.93% | 2.93% | 2.31% | 1.74% | 2.45% | 2.68% | 2.13% | 2.04% | 2.47% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XIN.TO drawdown since its inception was -58.56%, which is greater than XFH.TO's maximum drawdown of -33.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XIN.TO and XFH.TO. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
XIN.TO vs. XFH.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XIN.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.97% compared to iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XFH.TO) at 2.66%. This indicates that XIN.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XFH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.