PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XMU.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF) and QQC-F.TO (Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged) are both exchange-traded funds - XMU.TO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while QQC-F.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO returned 9.29%/yr vs 20.19%/yr for QQC-F.TO. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XMU.TO charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQC-F.TO.

Performance

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.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 Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC-F.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 4.02% return, which is significantly lower than QQC-F.TO's 19.18% return. Over the past 10 years, XMU.TO has underperformed QQC-F.TO with an annualized return of 9.29%, while QQC-F.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.19% annualized return.

XMU.TO

1D
0.17%
1M
4.32%
YTD
4.02%
6M
-0.90%
1Y
2.75%
3Y*
10.29%
5Y*
8.18%
10Y*
9.29%

QQC-F.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
8.60%
YTD
19.18%
6M
17.61%
1Y
37.09%
3Y*
26.30%
5Y*
16.21%
10Y*
20.19%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMU.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF		4.02%-0.84%21.99%6.59%-3.64%16.99%2.99%20.78%9.07%10.80%
QQC-F.TO
Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged		19.18%18.41%24.19%52.81%-33.42%27.15%45.04%37.63%-2.23%31.94%

Correlation

The correlation between XMU.TO and QQC-F.TO is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.23

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

0.30

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

0.43

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

0.44

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

0.43

Over the past year, the correlation between XMU.TO and QQC-F.TO has dropped to 0.23 - well below their long-term average of 0.43, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMU.TO
QQC-F.TO

Technology

31.2%
53.8%

Financial Services

13.7%
0.2%

Healthcare

12.6%
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

9.9%
7.7%

Utilities

7.4%
1.4%

Communication Services

5.9%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%
12.3%

Industrials

5.6%
2.8%

Energy

3.7%
0.6%

Real Estate

2.2%
0.1%

Basic Materials

2.1%
1.1%

Technology

XMU.TO
31.2%
QQC-F.TO
53.8%

Financial Services

XMU.TO
13.7%
QQC-F.TO
0.2%

Healthcare

XMU.TO
12.6%
QQC-F.TO
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

XMU.TO
9.9%
QQC-F.TO
7.7%

Utilities

XMU.TO
7.4%
QQC-F.TO
1.4%

Communication Services

XMU.TO
5.9%
QQC-F.TO
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XMU.TO
5.7%
QQC-F.TO
12.3%

Industrials

XMU.TO
5.6%
QQC-F.TO
2.8%

Energy

XMU.TO
3.7%
QQC-F.TO
0.6%

Real Estate

XMU.TO
2.2%
QQC-F.TO
0.1%

Basic Materials

XMU.TO
2.1%
QQC-F.TO
1.1%

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

Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF 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 QQC-F.TO:
QQC-F.TO vs. QQC.TOQQC-F.TO vs. XEQT.TOQQC-F.TO vs. QQQQQC-F.TO vs. HXQ.TOQQC-F.TO vs. QQQMQQC-F.TO vs. XQQ.TOQQC-F.TO vs. VFV.TO

Return for Risk

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.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: 1313
Overall Rank
XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMU.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank
QQC-F.TO
QQC-F.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
QQC-F.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQC-F.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQC-F.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
QQC-F.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQC-F.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
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. QQC-F.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 Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC-F.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.TOQQC-F.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.30
2.35

-2.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.47
3.14

-2.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.40

-0.35

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.36

2.83

-2.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.77

10.53

-9.76

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

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMU.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.30, which is lower than the QQC-F.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMU.TO and QQC-F.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.TOQQC-F.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.30

2.35

-2.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

0.73

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.67

0.90

-0.23

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.98

0.92

+0.06

Drawdowns

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMU.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.31%, smaller than the maximum QQC-F.TO drawdown of -36.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMU.TO and QQC-F.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMU.TOQQC-F.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.31%

-36.03%

+8.72%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.71%

-13.16%

+5.45%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.98%

-22.76%

+11.78%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.16%

-36.03%

+17.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.31%

-36.03%

+8.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.79%

-0.73%

-3.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.44%

-5.50%

+2.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.57%

3.53%

+0.04%

Volatility

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol USA Index ETF (XMU.TO) is 2.18%, while Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC-F.TO) has a volatility of 4.48%. This indicates that XMU.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQC-F.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMU.TOQQC-F.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.18%

4.48%

-2.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.86%

12.08%

-5.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.20%

15.89%

-6.69%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.15%

22.44%

-11.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.97%

22.54%

-8.57%

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

XMU.TO vs. QQC-F.TO - Dividend Comparison

XMU.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, while QQC-F.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QQC-F.TO
Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged		0.00%0.09%0.50%0.57%0.89%0.66%0.49%0.64%0.77%0.66%0.81%0.76%
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 QQC-F.TO have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

QQC-F.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for XMU.TO.

XMU.TO is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QQC-F.TO is Nasdaq-100. XMU.TO tracks MSCI USA Minimum Volatility Index, while QQC-F.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for XMU.TO and 0.20% for QQC-F.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMU.TO and QQC-F.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