XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO
XMS.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and QQQQ.TO (Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMS.TO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index, while QQQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMS.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QQQQ.TO.
Performance
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMS.TO achieves a 1.17% return, which is significantly lower than QQQQ.TO's 21.51% 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%
QQQQ.TO
- 1D
- 0.62%
- 1M
- 13.62%
- YTD
- 21.51%
- 6M
- 18.69%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
XMS.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.17% | -1.78% |
QQQQ.TO Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF | 21.51% | 7.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMS.TO and QQQQ.TO is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 25, 2025 | 0.11 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XMS.TO
QQQQ.TO
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.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 Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (QQQQ.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.TO | QQQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.01 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.03 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XMS.TO | QQQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.01 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.43 | — | — |
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 | 2.87 | -2.33 |
Drawdowns
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMS.TO drawdown since its inception was -36.48%, which is greater than QQQQ.TO's maximum drawdown of -11.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMS.TO and QQQQ.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMS.TO | QQQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.48% | -11.95% | -24.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.91% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -9.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.23% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.48% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.73% | 0.00% | -1.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.26% | -3.38% | -0.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.54% | — | — |
Volatility
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMS.TO | QQQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.35% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.14% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.75% | 17.07% | -8.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.11% | 17.07% | -4.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.74% | 17.07% | -2.33% |
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMS.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQQ.TO's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
XMS.TO vs. QQQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison
XMS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.18%, more than QQQQ.TO's 0.09% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QQQQ.TO Mackenzie NASDAQ 100 Index ETF | 0.09% | 0.11% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 QQQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QQQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QQQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for XMS.TO.
XMS.TO is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QQQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. XMS.TO tracks MSCI USA Minimum Volatility (USD) 100% Hedged to CAD Index, while QQQQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Mackenzie. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMS.TO and 0.25% for QQQQ.TO.
Find the right allocation for XMS.TO and QQQQ.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