PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XINC.TO (iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio) and MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XINC.TO returned 3.19%/yr vs 12.14%/yr for MGRW.TO. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO - 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 Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO). 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 MGRW.TO's 9.90% 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*
—

MGRW.TO

1D
0.05%
1M
4.58%
YTD
9.90%
6M
9.89%
1Y
25.85%
3Y*
19.61%
5Y*
12.14%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XINC.TO
iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio		3.53%6.71%7.76%8.51%-11.25%1.27%2.26%
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		9.90%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%

Correlation

The correlation between XINC.TO and MGRW.TO is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.46

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

0.37

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

0.35

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2020

0.34

The correlation between XINC.TO and MGRW.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (all time) to 0.46 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Mackenzie Growth Allocation 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 MGRW.TO:
MGRW.TO vs. MAAA.TOMGRW.TO vs. QDXH.TOMGRW.TO vs. VGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. QTIP.NEOMGRW.TO vs. TGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. PYF.TOMGRW.TO vs. WSHR.NEO

Return for Risk

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO — 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
MGRW.TO
MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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. MGRW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) and Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.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.

XINC.TOMGRW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.68
2.64

-0.96

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.44
3.96

-1.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.56

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.26

3.87

-1.61

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.54

15.91

-7.37

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. MGRW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XINC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is lower than the MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XINC.TO and MGRW.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

XINC.TOMGRW.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.68

2.64

-0.96

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

1.14

-0.64

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.56

1.25

-0.70

Drawdowns

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XINC.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.40%, smaller than the maximum MGRW.TO drawdown of -17.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XINC.TO and MGRW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XINC.TOMGRW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.40%

-17.20%

+1.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.65%

-6.72%

+3.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.36%

-12.17%

+7.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.40%

-17.20%

+1.80%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.05%

0.00%

-0.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.74%

-3.37%

-0.37%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.97%

1.63%

-0.66%

Volatility

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Income Balanced ETF Portfolio (XINC.TO) is 1.92%, while Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a volatility of 3.39%. This indicates that XINC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MGRW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XINC.TOMGRW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.92%

3.39%

-1.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.13%

8.09%

-3.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.93%

9.87%

-4.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.42%

10.68%

-4.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.73%

10.49%

-3.76%

Dividends

XINC.TO vs. MGRW.TO - Dividend Comparison

XINC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.19%, more than MGRW.TO's 1.73% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.73%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%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 MGRW.TO have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Mackenzie.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XINC.TO and MGRW.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