PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XQQ.TO vs. EEM

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD, while EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XQQ.TO returned 20.19%/yr vs 11.02%/yr for EEM. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XQQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for EEM.

Performance

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - 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 MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XQQ.TO achieves a 19.59% return, which is significantly lower than EEM's 30.67% return. Over the past 10 years, XQQ.TO has outperformed EEM with an annualized return of 20.19%, while EEM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.02% 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%

EEM

1D
3.22%
1M
9.63%
YTD
30.67%
6M
33.37%
1Y
56.53%
3Y*
24.62%
5Y*
10.60%
10Y*
11.02%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - 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%
EEM
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		30.67%27.86%15.51%6.36%-15.53%-3.68%14.24%13.35%-8.19%27.97%

Correlation

The correlation between XQQ.TO and EEM is 0.70, 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

0.70

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

0.59

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

0.58

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

0.59

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

0.55

The correlation between XQQ.TO and EEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (all time) to 0.70 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XQQ.TO
EEM

Technology

53.7%
44.3%

Communication Services

15.8%
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

7.7%
2.5%

Healthcare

4.2%
2.5%

Industrials

3.1%
6.6%

Utilities

1.4%
1.8%

Basic Materials

1.1%
5.9%

Energy

0.6%
3.4%

Financial Services

0.2%
17.7%

Real Estate

0.1%
1.0%

Technology

XQQ.TO
53.7%
EEM
44.3%

Communication Services

XQQ.TO
15.8%
EEM
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

XQQ.TO
12.2%
EEM
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

XQQ.TO
7.7%
EEM
2.5%

Healthcare

XQQ.TO
4.2%
EEM
2.5%

Industrials

XQQ.TO
3.1%
EEM
6.6%

Utilities

XQQ.TO
1.4%
EEM
1.8%

Basic Materials

XQQ.TO
1.1%
EEM
5.9%

Energy

XQQ.TO
0.6%
EEM
3.4%

Financial Services

XQQ.TO
0.2%
EEM
17.7%

Real Estate

XQQ.TO
0.1%
EEM
1.0%

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 MSCI Emerging Markets 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 EEM:
EEM vs. VWOEEM vs. SPYEEM vs. IEMGEEM vs. IS3N.DEEEM vs. VXUSEEM vs. EEMSEEM vs. SPEM

Return for Risk

XQQ.TO vs. EEM — 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
EEM
EEM Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
EEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEM Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
EEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEM Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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. EEM - 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 MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). 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.TOEEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.05
2.59

-0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.68
3.28

-0.61

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.47

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.43

4.63

-2.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.08

16.10

-8.03

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the EEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XQQ.TO and EEM, 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. EEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XQQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -38.25%, smaller than the maximum EEM drawdown of -55.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XQQ.TO and EEM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XQQ.TOEEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.25%

-55.52%

+17.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.68%

-12.26%

-2.42%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.72%

-15.82%

-6.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.25%

-30.79%

-7.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.25%

-35.39%

-2.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.45%

-0.08%

-0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.96%

-12.02%

+6.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.42%

3.52%

+0.90%

Volatility

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) is 7.98%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) has a volatility of 11.28%. This indicates that XQQ.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XQQ.TOEEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.98%

11.28%

-3.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.18%

19.84%

-5.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.42%

22.01%

-4.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.77%

20.22%

+2.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.53%

21.72%

+0.81%

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

XQQ.TO vs. EEM - Dividend Comparison

XQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than EEM's 2.24% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEM
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		2.24%2.22%2.43%2.63%2.50%1.99%1.45%2.76%2.24%1.89%1.89%2.49%
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 EEM have a correlation of 0.70, 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 EEM.

XQQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EEM is Emerging Markets Diversified. XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD, while EEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.39% for XQQ.TO and 0.72% for EEM.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XQQ.TO and EEM

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