PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) and HBF.TO (Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XMU.TO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while HBF.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Harvest Portfolios Group. XMU.TO is passively managed, while HBF.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO returned 9.17%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for HBF.TO. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for HBF.TO.

Performance

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - 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 Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged) (HBF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMU.TO achieves a 3.85% return, which is significantly lower than HBF.TO's 8.15% return. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO has underperformed HBF.TO with an annualized return of 9.17%, while HBF.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 11.18% 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%

HBF.TO

1D
-1.15%
1M
3.49%
YTD
8.15%
6M
7.25%
1Y
25.20%
3Y*
14.19%
5Y*
7.67%
10Y*
11.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - 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%
HBF.TO
Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged)		8.15%15.51%13.12%11.23%-14.97%21.88%11.41%25.99%-4.71%18.27%

Correlation

The correlation between XMU.TO and HBF.TO is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.37

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

0.49

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

0.54

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2014

0.46

The correlation between XMU.TO and HBF.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.54 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMU.TO
HBF.TO

Technology

31.2%
29.5%

Financial Services

13.7%
19.7%

Healthcare

12.6%
5.0%

Consumer Defensive

9.9%
15.1%

Utilities

7.4%

-

Communication Services

5.9%
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%
9.9%

Industrials

5.6%
5.4%

Energy

3.7%
5.1%

Real Estate

2.2%

-

Basic Materials

2.1%

-

Technology

XMU.TO
31.2%
HBF.TO
29.5%

Financial Services

XMU.TO
13.7%
HBF.TO
19.7%

Healthcare

XMU.TO
12.6%
HBF.TO
5.0%

Consumer Defensive

XMU.TO
9.9%
HBF.TO
15.1%

Utilities

XMU.TO
7.4%
HBF.TO

-

Communication Services

XMU.TO
5.9%
HBF.TO
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XMU.TO
5.7%
HBF.TO
9.9%

Industrials

XMU.TO
5.6%
HBF.TO
5.4%

Energy

XMU.TO
3.7%
HBF.TO
5.1%

Real Estate

XMU.TO
2.2%
HBF.TO

-

Basic Materials

XMU.TO
2.1%
HBF.TO

-

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

Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged)

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 HBF.TO:
HBF.TO vs. YGOG.NEOHBF.TO vs. RUD.TOHBF.TO vs. XTOT.TOHBF.TO vs. HPYE.TOHBF.TO vs. HPYB.TOHBF.TO vs. METE.TOHBF.TO vs. FLUS.TO

Return for Risk

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO — 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
HBF.TO
HBF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
HBF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HBF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
HBF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
HBF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
HBF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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. HBF.TO - 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 Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged) (HBF.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.

XMU.TOHBF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.22
2.46

-2.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.35
3.52

-3.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.44

-0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.26

3.25

-2.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.56

13.35

-12.80

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. HBF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the HBF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMU.TO and HBF.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

XMU.TOHBF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.22

2.46

-2.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

0.55

+0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.66

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.98

0.50

+0.49

Drawdowns

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMU.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum HBF.TO drawdown of -35.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMU.TO and HBF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMU.TOHBF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.31%

-35.28%

+7.97%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.71%

-7.79%

+0.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.98%

-15.21%

+4.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.16%

-23.69%

+5.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.31%

-35.28%

+7.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.95%

-1.15%

-2.80%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.44%

-6.77%

+3.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.57%

1.89%

+1.68%

Volatility

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) is 2.18%, while Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged) (HBF.TO) has a volatility of 2.65%. This indicates that XMU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HBF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMU.TOHBF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.18%

2.65%

-0.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.86%

7.79%

-0.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.20%

10.29%

-1.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.15%

14.07%

-2.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.97%

16.95%

-2.98%

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMU.TO has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than HBF.TO's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMU.TO vs. HBF.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than HBF.TO's 7.41% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HBF.TO
Harvest US Equity Leaders Income ETF Class A (CAD Hedged)		7.41%7.27%7.48%7.52%7.75%5.62%6.34%6.57%7.72%6.86%7.54%7.74%
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 HBF.TO have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XMU.TO is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for HBF.TO.

XMU.TO is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while HBF.TO is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Harvest Portfolios Group. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMU.TO and 0.75% for HBF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMU.TO and HBF.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