PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMS.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and FCUQ.TO (Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - XMS.TO tracks the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index while FCUQ.TO tracks the Fidelity Canada U.S. High Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMS.TO returned 5.12%/yr vs 14.68%/yr for FCUQ.TO. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMS.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for FCUQ.TO.

Performance

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.TO) and Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMS.TO achieves a 1.17% return, which is significantly lower than FCUQ.TO's 7.92% return.

XMS.TO

1D
-0.36%
1M
1.94%
YTD
1.17%
6M
-0.55%
1Y
0.08%
3Y*
8.89%
5Y*
5.12%
10Y*
7.82%

FCUQ.TO

1D
-0.47%
1M
8.68%
YTD
7.92%
6M
4.08%
1Y
14.01%
3Y*
18.73%
5Y*
14.68%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
XMS.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.17%3.71%14.23%7.84%-11.15%21.02%1.81%22.22%
FCUQ.TO
Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF		7.92%4.67%32.89%20.05%-11.48%31.73%13.51%24.22%

Correlation

The correlation between XMS.TO and FCUQ.TO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.35

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

0.42

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

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2019

0.45

The correlation between XMS.TO and FCUQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMS.TO
FCUQ.TO

Technology

29.8%
42.0%

Financial Services

14.0%
6.3%

Healthcare

12.7%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

9.9%
10.0%

Utilities

7.5%

-

Consumer Cyclical

6.2%
14.8%

Industrials

6.2%
12.4%

Communication Services

5.9%
4.3%

Energy

3.5%

-

Real Estate

2.2%

-

Basic Materials

2.1%
7.3%

Technology

XMS.TO
29.8%
FCUQ.TO
42.0%

Financial Services

XMS.TO
14.0%
FCUQ.TO
6.3%

Healthcare

XMS.TO
12.7%
FCUQ.TO
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

XMS.TO
9.9%
FCUQ.TO
10.0%

Utilities

XMS.TO
7.5%
FCUQ.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XMS.TO
6.2%
FCUQ.TO
14.8%

Industrials

XMS.TO
6.2%
FCUQ.TO
12.4%

Communication Services

XMS.TO
5.9%
FCUQ.TO
4.3%

Energy

XMS.TO
3.5%
FCUQ.TO

-

Real Estate

XMS.TO
2.2%
FCUQ.TO

-

Basic Materials

XMS.TO
2.1%
FCUQ.TO
7.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF

Often compared with XMS.TO:
XMS.TO vs. XMU.TOXMS.TO vs. VFV.TOXMS.TO vs. XDU.TOXMS.TO vs. VSP.TOXMS.TO vs. XUS.TOXMS.TO vs. SPYXMS.TO vs. ZSP.TO
Often compared with FCUQ.TO:
FCUQ.TO vs. HULC.TOFCUQ.TO vs. ETSX.TOFCUQ.TO vs. CNCL.TOFCUQ.TO vs. FCUV.TOFCUQ.TO vs. FBTC.TOFCUQ.TO vs. VDY.TOFCUQ.TO vs. FCID.TO

Return for Risk

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMS.TO
XMS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
XMS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
XMS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank
FCUQ.TO
FCUQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
FCUQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FCUQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
FCUQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
FCUQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
FCUQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
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.

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.TO) and Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.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.

XMS.TOFCUQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.01
1.23

-1.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.07
1.78

-1.71

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.23

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.01

1.16

-1.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.03

3.79

-3.76

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

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the FCUQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMS.TO and FCUQ.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

XMS.TOFCUQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.01

1.23

-1.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.43

1.01

-0.58

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.92

-0.38

Drawdowns

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMS.TO drawdown since its inception was -36.48%, which is greater than FCUQ.TO's maximum drawdown of -25.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMS.TO and FCUQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMS.TOFCUQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.48%

-25.36%

-11.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.91%

-12.14%

+5.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.82%

-16.48%

+6.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.23%

-22.73%

+3.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.48%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.73%

-0.47%

-1.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.26%

-4.29%

+0.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.54%

3.70%

-1.16%

Volatility

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.TO) is 2.35%, while Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.TO) has a volatility of 3.37%. This indicates that XMS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCUQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMS.TOFCUQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.35%

3.37%

-1.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.14%

9.46%

-3.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.75%

11.49%

-2.74%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.11%

14.62%

-2.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.74%

17.31%

-2.57%

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMS.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than FCUQ.TO's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMS.TO vs. FCUQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.18%, more than FCUQ.TO's 0.67% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
FCUQ.TO
Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF		0.67%0.73%0.77%0.88%1.04%0.79%1.15%0.82%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XMS.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.18%1.08%1.21%1.38%1.20%0.99%1.66%1.40%1.54%1.53%1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMS.TO and FCUQ.TO have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMS.TO is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMS.TO is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for FCUQ.TO.

XMS.TO tracks MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index, while FCUQ.TO tracks Fidelity Canada U.S. High Quality Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMS.TO and 0.35% for FCUQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMS.TO and FCUQ.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