PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and COW.TO (iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD, while COW.TO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Agriculture Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XQQ.TO returned 20.19%/yr vs 8.27%/yr for COW.TO. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XQQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for COW.TO.

Performance

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) and iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XQQ.TO achieves a 19.59% return, which is significantly higher than COW.TO's 14.00% return. Over the past 10 years, XQQ.TO has outperformed COW.TO with an annualized return of 20.19%, while COW.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 8.27% annualized return.

XQQ.TO

1D
3.04%
1M
4.80%
YTD
19.59%
6M
17.73%
1Y
35.57%
3Y*
24.45%
5Y*
14.91%
10Y*
20.19%

COW.TO

1D
-0.63%
1M
-0.63%
YTD
14.00%
6M
6.80%
1Y
4.28%
3Y*
5.57%
5Y*
3.92%
10Y*
8.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.59%15.77%24.69%53.25%-33.13%22.76%46.12%38.92%-1.32%33.41%
COW.TO
iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF		14.00%-4.34%5.62%-8.61%12.62%19.09%11.78%26.04%-14.16%14.90%

Correlation

The correlation between XQQ.TO and COW.TO is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.05

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

0.16

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

0.26

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

0.33

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2011

0.38

Over the past year, the correlation between XQQ.TO and COW.TO has dropped to 0.05 - well below their long-term average of 0.38, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XQQ.TO
COW.TO

Technology

53.7%

-

Communication Services

15.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

7.7%
42.3%

Healthcare

4.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%
28.0%

Utilities

1.4%

-

Basic Materials

1.1%
27.4%

Energy

0.6%

-

Financial Services

0.2%
0.5%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

XQQ.TO
53.7%
COW.TO

-

Communication Services

XQQ.TO
15.8%
COW.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XQQ.TO
12.2%
COW.TO
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

XQQ.TO
7.7%
COW.TO
42.3%

Healthcare

XQQ.TO
4.2%
COW.TO

-

Industrials

XQQ.TO
3.1%
COW.TO
28.0%

Utilities

XQQ.TO
1.4%
COW.TO

-

Basic Materials

XQQ.TO
1.1%
COW.TO
27.4%

Energy

XQQ.TO
0.6%
COW.TO

-

Financial Services

XQQ.TO
0.2%
COW.TO
0.5%

Real Estate

XQQ.TO
0.1%
COW.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF

Often compared with XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO
Often compared with COW.TO:
COW.TO vs. NTR.TOCOW.TO vs. CWW.TOCOW.TO vs. COWGCOW.TO vs. XHC.TOCOW.TO vs. VOOCOW.TO vs. DBACOW.TO vs. ZWC.TO

Return for Risk

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
COW.TO
COW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
COW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
COW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1212
Omega Ratio Rank
COW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
COW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
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.

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) and iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.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.

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.

XQQ.TOCOW.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.05
0.27

+1.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.68
0.51

+2.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.06

+0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

0.32

+2.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.08

0.78

+7.30

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the COW.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XQQ.TO and COW.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...

Drawdowns

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XQQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -38.25%, smaller than the maximum COW.TO drawdown of -55.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XQQ.TO and COW.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XQQ.TOCOW.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.25%

-55.00%

+16.75%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.68%

-13.43%

-1.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.72%

-14.51%

-8.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.25%

-29.84%

-8.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.25%

-42.38%

+4.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.45%

-12.04%

+11.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.96%

-14.69%

+8.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.42%

5.51%

-1.09%

Volatility

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.98% compared to iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF (COW.TO) at 3.57%. This indicates that XQQ.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COW.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XQQ.TOCOW.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.98%

3.57%

+4.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.18%

12.85%

+1.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.42%

16.21%

+1.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.77%

18.92%

+3.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.53%

21.84%

+0.69%

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XQQ.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than COW.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

XQQ.TO vs. COW.TO - Dividend Comparison

XQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than COW.TO's 2.16% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
COW.TO
iShares Global Agriculture Index ETF		2.16%2.46%1.43%1.62%2.01%0.69%1.13%1.13%1.18%0.63%1.21%1.96%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.67%0.93%1.27%0.52%0.80%1.44%1.61%1.64%2.35%1.93%

Frequently Asked Questions

XQQ.TO and COW.TO have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for COW.TO.

XQQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while COW.TO is Large Cap Blend Equities. XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD, while COW.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Agriculture Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for XQQ.TO and 0.72% for COW.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XQQ.TO and COW.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