PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

XMS.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - XMS.TO tracks the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index while FLUS.TO tracks the LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMS.TO returned 4.87%/yr vs 16.55%/yr for FLUS.TO. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMS.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FLUS.TO.

Performance

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.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 Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.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 1.23% return, which is significantly lower than FLUS.TO's 17.26% return.

XMS.TO

1D
0.94%
1M
0.29%
YTD
1.23%
6M
0.86%
1Y
0.03%
3Y*
7.81%
5Y*
4.87%
10Y*
7.51%

FLUS.TO

1D
0.75%
1M
4.20%
YTD
17.26%
6M
16.73%
1Y
26.72%
3Y*
23.75%
5Y*
16.55%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMS.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.23%3.74%14.27%7.88%-11.12%21.05%1.86%25.99%-1.00%7.50%
FLUS.TO
Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF		17.26%10.51%34.62%20.97%-9.96%25.50%8.45%21.86%4.72%6.87%

Correlation

The correlation between XMS.TO and FLUS.TO is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.30

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

0.35

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

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2017

0.41

The correlation between XMS.TO and FLUS.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
XMS.TO
FLUS.TO

Technology

32.3%
37.0%

Financial Services

13.4%
9.6%

Healthcare

12.6%
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

9.8%
4.1%

Utilities

7.2%
1.4%

Communication Services

5.8%
11.7%

Industrials

5.8%
9.5%

Consumer Cyclical

5.8%
11.3%

Energy

3.1%
0.9%

Real Estate

2.1%
2.7%

Basic Materials

2.1%
1.7%

Technology

XMS.TO
32.3%
FLUS.TO
37.0%

Financial Services

XMS.TO
13.4%
FLUS.TO
9.6%

Healthcare

XMS.TO
12.6%
FLUS.TO
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

XMS.TO
9.8%
FLUS.TO
4.1%

Utilities

XMS.TO
7.2%
FLUS.TO
1.4%

Communication Services

XMS.TO
5.8%
FLUS.TO
11.7%

Industrials

XMS.TO
5.8%
FLUS.TO
9.5%

Consumer Cyclical

XMS.TO
5.8%
FLUS.TO
11.3%

Energy

XMS.TO
3.1%
FLUS.TO
0.9%

Real Estate

XMS.TO
2.1%
FLUS.TO
2.7%

Basic Materials

XMS.TO
2.1%
FLUS.TO
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

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

Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index 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 FLUS.TO:
FLUS.TO vs. SMVP.TOFLUS.TO vs. HBF.TOFLUS.TO vs. TUEX.TOFLUS.TO vs. COW.TOFLUS.TO vs. CNCL.TOFLUS.TO vs. KNGC.TOFLUS.TO vs. QUU.TO

Return for Risk

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.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
FLUS.TO
FLUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. FLUS.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 Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.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.

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.

XMS.TOFLUS.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.00
1.83

-1.83

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.07
2.62

-2.54

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.37

-0.36

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.00

2.72

-2.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.01

9.50

-9.49

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

The current XMS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.00, which is lower than the FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMS.TO and FLUS.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...

Drawdowns

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMS.TO drawdown since its inception was -36.87%, which is greater than FLUS.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMS.TO and FLUS.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMS.TOFLUS.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.87%

-28.24%

-8.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.32%

-9.85%

+1.53%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.80%

-18.82%

+9.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.06%

-19.11%

+0.05%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.87%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.16%

0.00%

-3.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.44%

-3.69%

-0.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.59%

2.82%

+0.77%

Volatility

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XMS.TO) is 3.11%, while Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) has a volatility of 5.24%. This indicates that XMS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLUS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMS.TOFLUS.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.11%

5.24%

-2.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.34%

11.13%

-4.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.28%

14.65%

-4.37%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.38%

14.92%

-2.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.22%

15.94%

-0.72%

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

XMS.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than FLUS.TO's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMS.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, more than FLUS.TO's 0.56% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
FLUS.TO
Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF		0.56%0.74%0.94%1.24%1.77%1.80%1.67%1.89%1.72%0.60%0.00%
XMS.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		1.21%1.10%1.24%1.41%1.22%1.02%1.71%1.44%1.58%2.02%0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMS.TO and FLUS.TO have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLUS.TO is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for XMS.TO.

XMS.TO tracks MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index, while FLUS.TO tracks LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMS.TO and 0.29% for FLUS.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMS.TO and FLUS.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