PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XINC.TO (iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio) and FGRO.NEO (Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XINC.TO returned 3.19%/yr vs 14.69%/yr for FGRO.NEO. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XINC.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for FGRO.NEO.

Performance

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XINC.TO achieves a 3.53% return, which is significantly lower than FGRO.NEO's 9.39% return.

XINC.TO

1D
0.09%
1M
2.26%
YTD
3.53%
6M
3.10%
1Y
8.23%
3Y*
7.73%
5Y*
3.19%
10Y*
—

FGRO.NEO

1D
0.54%
1M
3.71%
YTD
9.39%
6M
9.21%
1Y
22.30%
3Y*
21.34%
5Y*
14.69%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XINC.TO
iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio		3.53%6.71%7.76%8.51%-11.25%1.30%
FGRO.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF		9.39%17.00%25.97%16.92%-6.29%16.51%

Correlation

The correlation between XINC.TO and FGRO.NEO is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.66

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

0.47

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

0.44

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021

0.45

Over the past year, XINC.TO and FGRO.NEO have become more correlated (0.66) than their long-term average of 0.45, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XINC.TO
FGRO.NEO

Technology

4.8%
20.6%

Financial Services

4.3%
22.2%

Industrials

1.9%
11.3%

Energy

1.5%
4.4%

Consumer Cyclical

1.4%
7.7%

Communication Services

1.3%
4.8%

Basic Materials

1.3%
9.7%

Healthcare

1.2%
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
5.5%

Utilities

0.5%
4.6%

Real Estate

0.3%
4.7%

Technology

XINC.TO
4.8%
FGRO.NEO
20.6%

Financial Services

XINC.TO
4.3%
FGRO.NEO
22.2%

Industrials

XINC.TO
1.9%
FGRO.NEO
11.3%

Energy

XINC.TO
1.5%
FGRO.NEO
4.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XINC.TO
1.4%
FGRO.NEO
7.7%

Communication Services

XINC.TO
1.3%
FGRO.NEO
4.8%

Basic Materials

XINC.TO
1.3%
FGRO.NEO
9.7%

Healthcare

XINC.TO
1.2%
FGRO.NEO
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

XINC.TO
0.9%
FGRO.NEO
5.5%

Utilities

XINC.TO
0.5%
FGRO.NEO
4.6%

Real Estate

XINC.TO
0.3%
FGRO.NEO
4.7%

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 Income Balanced ETF Portfolio

Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF

Often compared with XINC.TO:
XINC.TO vs. XCNS.TOXINC.TO vs. VFV.TOXINC.TO vs. XEQT.TOXINC.TO vs. XGRO.TOXINC.TO vs. XSUS.TOXINC.TO vs. ZMMK.TOXINC.TO vs. XBAL.TO
Often compared with FGRO.NEO:
FGRO.NEO vs. VGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. XGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. FBAL.NEOFGRO.NEO vs. VEQT.TOFGRO.NEO vs. ZGRO.TOFGRO.NEO vs. FGROFGRO.NEO vs. VFV.TO

Return for Risk

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XINC.TO
XINC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
XINC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
XINC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO
FGRO.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
FGRO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
FGRO.NEO 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.

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) and Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.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.

XINC.TOFGRO.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.68
2.32

-0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.44
3.26

-0.83

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.44

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.26

2.97

-0.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.54

12.68

-4.14

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

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XINC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is comparable to the FGRO.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XINC.TO and FGRO.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XINC.TOFGRO.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.68

2.32

-0.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

1.40

-0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.56

1.38

-0.82

Drawdowns

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XINC.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.40%, roughly equal to the maximum FGRO.NEO drawdown of -15.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XINC.TO and FGRO.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XINC.TOFGRO.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.40%

-15.23%

-0.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.65%

-7.54%

+3.89%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.36%

-11.45%

+7.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.40%

-15.23%

-0.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.05%

-0.37%

+0.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.74%

-2.52%

-1.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.97%

1.76%

-0.79%

Volatility

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) is 1.92%, while Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF (FGRO.NEO) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that XINC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FGRO.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XINC.TOFGRO.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.92%

3.58%

-1.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.13%

7.76%

-3.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.93%

9.66%

-4.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.42%

10.59%

-4.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.73%

10.47%

-3.74%

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XINC.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FGRO.NEO's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

XINC.TO vs. FGRO.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XINC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.19%, more than FGRO.NEO's 1.13% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
FGRO.NEO
Fidelity All-in-One Growth ETF		1.13%1.24%1.09%1.39%4.58%0.94%0.00%0.00%
XINC.TO
iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio		3.19%3.16%2.81%2.87%2.54%2.02%2.40%0.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

XINC.TO and FGRO.NEO have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XINC.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for FGRO.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XINC.TO and 0.42% for FGRO.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XINC.TO and FGRO.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