PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMU.TO vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMU.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds from iShares - XMU.TO tracks the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index while ACWV tracks the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO returned 9.17%/yr vs 8.14%/yr for ACWV. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with XMU.TO having a 3.85% return and ACWV slightly lower at 3.66%. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 9.17%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 8.14% annualized return.

XMU.TO

1D
-0.09%
1M
4.37%
YTD
3.85%
6M
-1.16%
1Y
1.98%
3Y*
10.21%
5Y*
8.15%
10Y*
9.17%

ACWV

1D
-0.21%
1M
3.02%
YTD
3.66%
6M
2.16%
1Y
6.14%
3Y*
11.34%
5Y*
8.48%
10Y*
8.14%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		3.85%-0.84%21.99%6.59%-3.64%16.99%2.99%20.78%9.07%10.80%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.66%5.95%20.95%5.85%-3.97%12.94%1.30%15.09%6.94%11.02%

Correlation

The correlation between XMU.TO and ACWV is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.75

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

0.74

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

0.78

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

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2012

0.78

The correlation between XMU.TO and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMU.TO
ACWV

Technology

31.2%
22.6%

Financial Services

13.7%
13.1%

Healthcare

12.6%
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

9.9%
10.3%

Utilities

7.4%
7.8%

Communication Services

5.9%
12.2%

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%
5.1%

Industrials

5.6%
7.9%

Energy

3.7%
3.4%

Real Estate

2.2%
0.8%

Basic Materials

2.1%
1.8%

Technology

XMU.TO
31.2%
ACWV
22.6%

Financial Services

XMU.TO
13.7%
ACWV
13.1%

Healthcare

XMU.TO
12.6%
ACWV
13.2%

Consumer Defensive

XMU.TO
9.9%
ACWV
10.3%

Utilities

XMU.TO
7.4%
ACWV
7.8%

Communication Services

XMU.TO
5.9%
ACWV
12.2%

Consumer Cyclical

XMU.TO
5.7%
ACWV
5.1%

Industrials

XMU.TO
5.6%
ACWV
7.9%

Energy

XMU.TO
3.7%
ACWV
3.4%

Real Estate

XMU.TO
2.2%
ACWV
0.8%

Basic Materials

XMU.TO
2.1%
ACWV
1.8%

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

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with XMU.TO:
XMU.TO vs. ZLU.TOXMU.TO vs. XMV.TOXMU.TO vs. XMS.TOXMU.TO vs. VFV.TOXMU.TO vs. XIT.TOXMU.TO vs. SMMVXMU.TO vs. XST.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

XMU.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMU.TO
XMU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1010
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

XMU.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.22
0.79

-0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.35
1.15

-0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.14

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.26

1.21

-0.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.56

3.17

-2.62

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

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMU.TO and ACWV, 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

XMU.TOACWVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.22

0.79

-0.57

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

0.98

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.75

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.98

1.01

-0.02

Drawdowns

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMU.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -22.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMU.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMU.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.31%

-22.14%

-5.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.71%

-5.09%

-2.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.98%

-8.31%

-2.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.16%

-14.16%

-4.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.31%

-22.14%

-5.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.95%

-1.08%

-2.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.44%

-2.53%

-0.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.57%

1.94%

+1.63%

Volatility

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.18% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.76%. This indicates that XMU.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMU.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.18%

1.76%

+0.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.86%

5.85%

+1.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.20%

7.81%

+1.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.15%

8.68%

+2.47%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.97%

10.95%

+3.02%

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMU.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMU.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

XMU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than ACWV's 2.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.04%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		1.12%1.10%1.14%1.33%1.10%1.00%1.59%1.36%1.39%1.51%1.73%1.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMU.TO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for XMU.TO.

XMU.TO tracks MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMU.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMU.TO and ACWV

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