XMA.TO vs. XLF

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

XMA.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF) and XLF (State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMA.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while XLF is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Financial Select Sector Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO returned 13.48%/yr vs 14.30%/yr for XLF. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMA.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for XLF.

Performance

XMA.TO vs. XLF - 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 State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XMA.TO is traded in CAD, while XLF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XLF values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMA.TO achieves a 1.98% return, which is significantly higher than XLF's -0.12% return. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO has underperformed XLF with an annualized return of 13.48%, while XLF has yielded a comparatively higher 14.30% annualized return.

XMA.TO

• 1D: 3.03%
• 1M: -10.24%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 3.38%
• 1Y: 53.64%
• 3Y*: 33.28%
• 5Y*: 18.78%
• 10Y*: 13.48%

XLF

• 1D: 1.55%
• 1M: 6.03%
• YTD: -0.12%
• 6M: -0.69%
• 1Y: 11.41%
• 3Y*: 20.64%
• 5Y*: 12.35%
• 10Y*: 14.30%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF	1.98%	99.21%	20.72%	-2.04%	1.35%	3.32%	19.73%	24.64%	-10.44%	7.12%
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	-0.12%	9.66%	41.61%	9.36%	-4.92%	34.73%	-4.07%	26.44%	-5.75%	13.74%

Correlation

The correlation between XMA.TO and XLF is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2006	0.18

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMA.TO	XLF
Basic Materials	98.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.6%	-
Industrials	0.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	98.0%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

XMA.TO vs. XLF — 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: 44
XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
XMA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
XMA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 47
XMA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
XMA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 38

XLF

XLF Risk / Return Rank: 15
XLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
XLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
XLF Omega Ratio Rank: 15
XLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
XLF Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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. XLF - 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 State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF). 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.

	XMA.TO	XLF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	0.56	+0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.83	0.86	+0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.11	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	0.59	+1.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.39	1.47	+3.92

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is higher than the XLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMA.TO and XLF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMA.TO drawdown since its inception was -64.42%, smaller than the maximum XLF drawdown of -80.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMA.TO and XLF.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMA.TO	XLF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.42%	-80.96%	+16.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.51%	-14.50%	-14.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.51%	-17.20%	-11.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	-23.97%	-9.09%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.06%	-37.86%	+4.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.00%	-3.56%	-19.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.07%	-22.57%	-4.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.41%	5.86%	+4.55%

Volatility

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) has a higher volatility of 15.41% compared to State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLF) at 4.51%. This indicates that XMA.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMA.TO	XLF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.41%	4.51%	+10.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.63%	11.91%	+20.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.59%	15.35%	+23.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.96%	19.50%	+8.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.78%	22.97%	+3.81%

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMA.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XLF's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMA.TO vs. XLF - Dividend Comparison

XMA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than XLF's 1.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
XLF State Street Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF	1.49%	1.31%	1.42%	1.71%	2.04%	1.63%	2.03%	1.87%	2.08%	1.48%	21.10%	1.95%
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF	0.39%	0.41%	0.83%	1.26%	1.24%	0.87%	0.63%	0.64%	0.75%	0.47%	0.82%	1.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMA.TO and XLF in my portfolio?

XMA.TO and XLF have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XMA.TO or XLF?

On fees, XLF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMA.TO or XLF?

XLF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XMA.TO.

What is the main difference between XMA.TO and XLF?

XMA.TO is categorized as Materials, while XLF is Financials Equities. XMA.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while XLF tracks Financial Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XMA.TO and 0.08% for XLF.