PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMA.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF) and CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMA.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO returned 14.00%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for CIF.TO. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMA.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CIF.TO.

Performance

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMA.TO achieves a 7.60% return, which is significantly lower than CIF.TO's 25.20% return. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO has outperformed CIF.TO with an annualized return of 14.00%, while CIF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 12.99% annualized return.

XMA.TO

1D
-3.13%
1M
5.70%
YTD
7.60%
6M
12.34%
1Y
64.71%
3Y*
35.49%
5Y*
20.09%
10Y*
14.00%

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMA.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF		7.60%99.21%20.72%-2.04%1.35%3.31%19.73%24.63%-10.46%7.07%
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%23.55%-5.46%2.34%

Correlation

The correlation between XMA.TO and CIF.TO is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.39

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

0.38

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

0.40

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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2008

0.27

The correlation between XMA.TO and CIF.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (all time) to 0.40 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMA.TO
CIF.TO

Basic Materials

98.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

1.6%
0.5%

Industrials

0.0%
31.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

20.8%

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

0.5%

Utilities

-

46.9%

Basic Materials

XMA.TO
98.4%
CIF.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XMA.TO
1.6%
CIF.TO
0.5%

Industrials

XMA.TO
0.0%
CIF.TO
31.8%

Communication Services

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Energy

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO
20.8%

Financial Services

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Healthcare

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Real Estate

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Technology

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO
0.5%

Utilities

XMA.TO

-

CIF.TO
46.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Often compared with XMA.TO:
XMA.TO vs. XGD.TOXMA.TO vs. XETM.TOXMA.TO vs. XIC.TOXMA.TO vs. ZUT.TOXMA.TO vs. XIT.TOXMA.TO vs. XEQT.TOXMA.TO vs. XBM.TO
Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO

Return for Risk

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMA.TO
XMA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.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.

XMA.TOCIF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.75
2.33

-0.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.11
3.13

-1.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.43

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.41

3.72

-1.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.76

13.46

-6.70

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

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMA.TO and CIF.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

XMA.TOCIF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

2.33

-0.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

1.28

-0.55

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

0.78

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.54

-0.26

Drawdowns

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMA.TO drawdown since its inception was -64.13%, which is greater than CIF.TO's maximum drawdown of -42.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMA.TO and CIF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMA.TOCIF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.13%

-42.37%

-21.76%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.96%

-9.50%

-17.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.96%

-20.40%

-6.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.06%

-20.40%

-12.66%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.06%

-42.37%

+9.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.76%

-0.76%

-18.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.31%

-5.66%

-20.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

9.60%

2.63%

+6.97%

Volatility

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) has a higher volatility of 13.42% compared to iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) at 5.85%. This indicates that XMA.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CIF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMA.TOCIF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.42%

5.85%

+7.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

30.86%

12.44%

+18.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

37.08%

15.23%

+21.85%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.55%

14.56%

+12.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.56%

16.69%

+9.87%

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMA.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CIF.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMA.TO vs. CIF.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than CIF.TO's 1.77% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
XMA.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF		0.37%0.41%0.83%1.26%1.24%0.87%0.63%0.62%0.72%0.42%0.82%1.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMA.TO and CIF.TO have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMA.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMA.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

XMA.TO is categorized as Materials, while CIF.TO is Energy Equities. XMA.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XMA.TO and 0.72% for CIF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMA.TO and CIF.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