All-in-one ETFs are the simplest way for Canadians to own the global market. Here's the real comparison: fees, asset allocation, and who each one is built for.
A decade ago, building a properly diversified portfolio meant buying 4–6 individual ETFs across Canadian, US, international, and emerging markets, then rebalancing them manually each year. Most Canadians either didn't bother or got it wrong.
All-in-one ETFs — sometimes called "asset allocation ETFs" — package that whole portfolio into a single ticker. You buy one ETF, you own thousands of companies across dozens of countries. The ETF rebalances itself back to target weights automatically.
Three providers dominate this space in Canada: iShares (BlackRock), Vanguard Canada, and BMO. The products are remarkably similar — the differences come down to asset allocation preferences and minor fee distinctions.
Best for investors with long time horizons (15+ years) who can stomach a 30–40% drawdown without selling. Higher expected returns, higher volatility.
iShares' flagship all-in-one. Holds XIC (Canadian), XUU (US), XEF (international), and XEC (emerging markets) under the hood. Higher Canada weighting than global market cap would suggest — a deliberate "home bias" choice. Slightly lower MER than Vanguard's equivalent.
A strong default for most Canadians: low fee, global diversification, one purchase.
Vanguard's equivalent. Holds VCAN, VUN, VIU, and VEE internally. Key difference: lower Canada weighting (~30%) and higher emerging markets exposure (~9%) than XEQT. Slightly higher MER at 0.24%, though this gap is very small in dollar terms.
The better fit if you want a portfolio that tilts toward global market weights rather than Canadian home bias.
BMO's entrant, less popular but comparable on fees. Uses BMO's own underlying ETFs. Allocation sits between XEQT and VEQT. Smaller AUM (assets under management) than the iShares/Vanguard options — not a dealbreaker, but worth knowing.
Reasonable choice if you're already using BMO for banking or brokerage; no meaningful advantage otherwise.
The 80/20 split adds some stability. Bonds won't protect you much in a severe crash (they're only 20%), but they reduce day-to-day volatility and give the fund something to rebalance into when equities fall. Good for investors 10–20 years from retirement.
Same equity building blocks as XEQT with XBB (Canadian bonds) and XGB (global bonds) added. The 0.20% MER is the same as XEQT despite the extra complexity. Good value. Automatically rebalances between stocks and bonds, which is genuinely useful during volatile periods.
Works well for investors in their 30s and 40s who want growth but aren't ready to watch a pure-equity portfolio drop 40% without some cushion underneath.
Vanguard's 80/20 equivalent. Same equity approach as VEQT — lower Canada weighting, higher emerging markets exposure. Uses VAB (Canadian bonds) and VBG (global bonds). A solid choice; the 0.04% MER difference from XGRO is ~$4/year on $10,000 — genuinely not worth stressing about.
Same logic as XGRO but with Vanguard's allocation — lower Canada weight, more emerging markets exposure, slightly higher MER.
For investors closer to retirement or those who genuinely can't stomach large drawdowns. XBAL (iShares) and VBAL (Vanguard) follow the same pattern. More bonds means lower expected returns but also lower swings. A $500K portfolio dropping 40% can feel very different from a 20% drop — and that emotional reality is worth factoring in.
Worth considering if you're 5–15 years from retirement, or if you know from experience that a large portfolio drop will make you want to sell.
Approximate figures. Allocation percentages shift over time — check the current fund page before investing. MER data from iShares.ca and Vanguard.ca.
| Ticker | Provider | MER | Equity/Bond | Canada % | US % | Emerging % | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XEQT | iShares | 0.20% | 100/0 | ~45% | ~37% | ~4% | Max growth, long horizon |
| VEQT | Vanguard | 0.24% | 100/0 | ~30% | ~43% | ~9% | More global tilt, less Canada |
| ZEQT | BMO | 0.20% | 100/0 | ~40% | ~40% | ~5% | BMO users, balanced split |
| XGRO | iShares | 0.20% | 80/20 | ~36% | ~30% | ~3% | Growth + modest bond buffer |
| VGRO | Vanguard | 0.24% | 80/20 | ~24% | ~34% | ~7% | Global tilt + bond buffer |
| XBAL | iShares | 0.20% | 60/40 | ~27% | ~23% | ~2% | Conservative, near-retirement |
| VBAL | Vanguard | 0.24% | 60/40 | ~18% | ~26% | ~5% | Conservative, global tilt |
On performance data: We've intentionally not included return figures in this comparison. One-year or even five-year returns for these ETFs are almost entirely a function of their equity allocation and market timing — not the quality of the ETF itself. XEQT and VEQT are so similar that any performance difference between them is noise, not signal. Pick based on your allocation preference and fee sensitivity, not recent returns.
This is the question most Canadians end up asking. The honest answer: it's a minor decision. Both are excellent products at ultra-low cost. The actual decision point is your view on Canada allocation.
Home bias isn't necessarily wrong — Canadian investors have CAD liabilities (mortgage, retirement spending in Canada) so having more Canada reduces currency risk. But having 45% in one country that represents 3% of world markets is a concentrated bet on energy, financials, and materials.
If you have no strong opinion: XEQT's 0.20% vs VEQT's 0.24% makes XEQT slightly cheaper — a small but real edge over decades.
If you want more global diversification and are comfortable with more emerging markets exposure: VEQT's allocation is arguably more balanced globally.
The answer to "XEQT or VEQT?" is: either is fine. Pick one, buy it consistently, don't switch.
All of these ETFs trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and are available through any Canadian brokerage. The notable options for cost-conscious investors:
MER figures sourced from iShares.ca and Vanguard.ca. Asset allocation percentages are approximate and change over time — verify with the fund provider before investing. Nothing here is financial advice. Past performance doesn't predict future results. Holdings data can be found in each fund's Management Report on Fund Performance on SEDAR+.