Compare
VEQT × the field

The Scorecard

Round-by-round, who took it

This isn't a provider battle — it's a philosophy question. VEQT bets that over long horizons, 100% equities win. XGRO hedges that bet with a 20% bond buffer. Both are right, depending on your timeline and temperament.

  1. Long-term return potential

    VEQT

    100% equities have historically outperformed 80/20 portfolios over 15+ year periods. The bond allocation in XGRO reduces upside alongside risk.

  2. Drawdown protection

    XGRO

    XGRO's 20% bond buffer meaningfully reduced losses during the COVID crash and 2022 bear market. If you'd sell in a panic, XGRO's smoother ride may preserve more wealth in practice.

  3. Simplicity

    TIE

    Both are single-ticker, auto-rebalanced portfolios. Buy either and forget it.

  4. Cost (MER)

    TIE

    XGRO's MER is 0.20%. VEQT's effective MER is ~0.20% after the November 2025 fee cut (official MER update pending). Essentially identical.

  5. Suitability for 5–15 year goals

    XGRO

    For medium-term goals like a home down payment or mid-career savings, the bond cushion provides more predictable outcomes.

  6. Suitability for 20+ year goals

    VEQT

    For retirement-horizon investing, the equity risk premium has historically rewarded patient investors. Bonds become a drag over very long periods.

Our recommendation

If you're investing for 20+ years and can stomach a 30%+ drawdown without selling, VEQT is the sharper tool. If your horizon is shorter, or you know you'd panic in a crash, XGRO's bond cushion earns its keep. The worst outcome isn't picking the 'wrong' fund — it's selling either one at the bottom.

Editorial analysis based on publicly available fund data. Not financial advice. Your situation may differ.

← Back to all bouts