PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XMW.TO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMW.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMW.TO is a Global Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMW.TO returned 7.50%/yr vs 8.14%/yr for ACWV. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMW.TO charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF (XMW.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

XMW.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 investments are quite close, with XMW.TO having a 3.60% return and ACWV slightly higher at 3.66%. Over the past 10 years, XMW.TO has underperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 7.50%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively higher 8.14% annualized return.

XMW.TO

1D
0.07%
1M
3.38%
YTD
3.60%
6M
2.07%
1Y
5.74%
3Y*
10.78%
5Y*
7.90%
10Y*
7.50%

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)

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMW.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF		3.60%5.84%20.05%4.68%-4.33%12.80%0.51%14.74%5.95%10.19%
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 XMW.TO and ACWV is 0.78, 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

0.78

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

0.82

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

0.81

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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2012

0.80

The correlation between XMW.TO and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMW.TO
ACWV

Technology

22.6%
22.6%

Financial Services

13.4%
13.1%

Healthcare

12.9%
13.2%

Communication Services

11.6%
12.2%

Consumer Defensive

10.1%
10.3%

Utilities

7.6%
7.8%

Industrials

7.5%
7.9%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
5.1%

Energy

2.9%
3.4%

Basic Materials

1.6%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.8%

Technology

XMW.TO
22.6%
ACWV
22.6%

Financial Services

XMW.TO
13.4%
ACWV
13.1%

Healthcare

XMW.TO
12.9%
ACWV
13.2%

Communication Services

XMW.TO
11.6%
ACWV
12.2%

Consumer Defensive

XMW.TO
10.1%
ACWV
10.3%

Utilities

XMW.TO
7.6%
ACWV
7.8%

Industrials

XMW.TO
7.5%
ACWV
7.9%

Consumer Cyclical

XMW.TO
5.1%
ACWV
5.1%

Energy

XMW.TO
2.9%
ACWV
3.4%

Basic Materials

XMW.TO
1.6%
ACWV
1.8%

Real Estate

XMW.TO
0.7%
ACWV
0.8%

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 Global Index ETF

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with XMW.TO:
XMW.TO vs. ZLB.TOXMW.TO vs. XMV.TOXMW.TO vs. XEF.TOXMW.TO vs. XEQT.TOXMW.TO vs. XDIV.TOXMW.TO vs. VXC.TOXMW.TO vs. XMU.TO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. VXUS

Return for Risk

XMW.TO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMW.TO
XMW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
XMW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
XMW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF (XMW.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.

XMW.TOACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.75
0.79

-0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.10
1.15

-0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.14

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.12

1.21

-0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.08

3.17

-0.09

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

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMW.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

XMW.TOACWVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.75

0.79

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.91

0.98

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.68

0.75

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.94

1.01

-0.06

Drawdowns

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMW.TO drawdown since its inception was -21.42%, roughly equal to the maximum ACWV drawdown of -22.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMW.TO and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMW.TOACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.42%

-22.14%

+0.72%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.14%

-5.09%

-0.05%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-8.59%

-8.31%

-0.28%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.45%

-14.16%

-0.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-21.42%

-22.14%

+0.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.58%

-1.08%

+0.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.74%

-2.53%

-0.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.87%

1.94%

-0.07%

Volatility

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF (XMW.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.87% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.76%. This indicates that XMW.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

XMW.TOACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.87%

1.76%

+0.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.59%

5.85%

-0.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.67%

7.81%

-0.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.70%

8.68%

+0.02%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.07%

10.95%

+0.12%

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMW.TO has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMW.TO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

XMW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, 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%
XMW.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Global Index ETF		1.52%1.58%1.81%1.98%1.66%1.43%1.52%2.20%2.01%1.61%2.02%1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMW.TO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.78, 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 0.48% for XMW.TO.

XMW.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. XMW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl GR CAD, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.48% for XMW.TO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMW.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