PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XQLT.TO vs. EEMV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

XQLT.TO (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor Index ETF) and EEMV (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XQLT.TO is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while EEMV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XQLT.TO returned 14.75%/yr vs 8.63%/yr for EEMV. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XQLT.TO charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for EEMV.

Performance

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XQLT.TO achieves a 11.20% return, which is significantly lower than EEMV's 19.60% return.

XQLT.TO

1D
0.49%
1M
4.72%
YTD
11.20%
6M
10.64%
1Y
23.71%
3Y*
20.91%
5Y*
14.75%
10Y*
—

EEMV

1D
0.61%
1M
4.91%
YTD
19.60%
6M
20.16%
1Y
26.22%
3Y*
15.27%
5Y*
8.63%
10Y*
7.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
XQLT.TO
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor Index ETF		11.20%7.09%32.36%28.08%-17.15%27.90%11.61%9.78%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF		19.60%8.27%17.12%5.19%-8.49%5.00%4.36%2.31%

Correlation

The correlation between XQLT.TO and EEMV is 0.54, 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

0.54

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

0.34

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

0.31

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 12, 2019

0.28

Over the past year, XQLT.TO and EEMV have become more correlated (0.54) than their long-term average of 0.28, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XQLT.TO
EEMV

Technology

37.0%
28.9%

Financial Services

11.8%
17.7%

Communication Services

11.0%
11.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
5.0%

Healthcare

8.8%
6.2%

Industrials

7.9%
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
6.8%

Energy

4.0%
3.4%

Utilities

1.8%
4.6%

Real Estate

1.8%
0.5%

Basic Materials

1.7%
3.1%

Technology

XQLT.TO
37.0%
EEMV
28.9%

Financial Services

XQLT.TO
11.8%
EEMV
17.7%

Communication Services

XQLT.TO
11.0%
EEMV
11.2%

Consumer Cyclical

XQLT.TO
9.3%
EEMV
5.0%

Healthcare

XQLT.TO
8.8%
EEMV
6.2%

Industrials

XQLT.TO
7.9%
EEMV
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

XQLT.TO
4.9%
EEMV
6.8%

Energy

XQLT.TO
4.0%
EEMV
3.4%

Utilities

XQLT.TO
1.8%
EEMV
4.6%

Real Estate

XQLT.TO
1.8%
EEMV
0.5%

Basic Materials

XQLT.TO
1.7%
EEMV
3.1%

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 USA Quality Factor Index ETF

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with XQLT.TO:
XQLT.TO vs. XVLU.TOXQLT.TO vs. HYLD.TOXQLT.TO vs. VOOXQLT.TO vs. VFV.TOXQLT.TO vs. SPYXQLT.TO vs. ZSP.TOXQLT.TO vs. XGRO.TO
Often compared with EEMV:
EEMV vs. EEMEEMV vs. IEMGEEMV vs. SPYEEMV vs. EFAVEEMV vs. MCHIEEMV vs. USMVEEMV vs. SPEM

Return for Risk

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XQLT.TO
XQLT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
XQLT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQLT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQLT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQLT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQLT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
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.

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor Index ETF (XQLT.TO) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

XQLT.TOEEMVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.97
1.76

+0.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.83
2.46

+0.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.34

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.85

3.05

-0.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.88

10.35

+0.53

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XQLT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is comparable to the EEMV Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XQLT.TO and EEMV, 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...

Drawdowns

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XQLT.TO drawdown since its inception was -25.12%, which is greater than EEMV's maximum drawdown of -22.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XQLT.TO and EEMV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XQLT.TOEEMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.12%

-22.91%

-2.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.35%

-8.64%

+0.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.95%

-10.46%

-8.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.12%

-15.65%

-9.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-22.91%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.14%

-0.52%

+0.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.18%

-4.88%

-0.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.20%

2.55%

-0.35%

Volatility

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor Index ETF (XQLT.TO) is 4.62%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a volatility of 7.89%. This indicates that XQLT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XQLT.TOEEMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.62%

7.89%

-3.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.69%

13.64%

-3.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.11%

14.98%

-2.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.62%

13.72%

+1.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.44%

15.51%

+0.93%

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XQLT.TO has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMV's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

XQLT.TO vs. EEMV - Dividend Comparison

XQLT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than EEMV's 2.26% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF		2.26%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%
XQLT.TO
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor Index ETF		0.63%0.69%0.72%0.94%1.21%0.87%1.11%1.23%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

XQLT.TO and EEMV have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EEMV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EEMV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for XQLT.TO.

XQLT.TO is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while EEMV is Asia Pacific Equities. XQLT.TO tracks MSCI USA Sector Neutral Quality Index, while EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for XQLT.TO and 0.25% for EEMV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XQLT.TO and EEMV

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