FolioNorth

Just Buy Guide

Which all-in-one ETF should I just buy?

A neutral guide to eight Canadian all-in-one ETFs across three allocation tiers: 100% equity, 80/20 growth, and 60/40 balanced. Use the profile tool below to map your situation to a category.

Data freshness

8 of 8 ETF datasets have structured source checks

Most recent check: Jul 17, 2026.

New in the Avantis CIBC lineup

Three more Avantis ETFs began trading on August 27, 2026: CAKE (60/40), CAGR (80/20), and CAGX (globally weighted equity). Read the launch rundown.

100% Equity

Suits long horizons (15+ years) and high drawdown tolerance. Maximum expected long-run return, deepest drawdowns.

XEQTiShares

Canada's most-bought all-equity ETF. Lowest MER, highest liquidity, quarterly distributions.

Read the guide →
VEQTVanguard

Same strategy as XEQT, one key edge: a single annual distribution that simplifies ACB tracking in non-registered accounts.

Read the guide →
CAGEAvantis

A factor-tilted all-in-one, not a passive index. Only the right choice if you've already decided you want factor exposure.

Read the guide →
80 / 20 Growth

Suits medium-to-long horizons (8-20 years). A 20% bond sleeve smooths drawdowns modestly without sacrificing most of the equity return.

XGROiShares

iShares' 80/20 growth ETF. Lower MER than VGRO, quarterly distributions, automatic rebalancing.

Read the guide →
VGROVanguard

Canada's largest balanced ETF by AUM. Annual December distribution simplifies non-registered tax tracking.

Read the guide →
60 / 40 Balanced

Suits shorter horizons (5-15 years) or lower drawdown tolerance. A 40% bond sleeve provides meaningful capital cushion at the cost of lower expected return.

XBALiShares

iShares' 60/40 balanced ETF. Lower MER than VBAL, quarterly distributions, classic balanced allocation.

Read the guide →
VBALVanguard

Vanguard's 60/40 balanced ETF. Annual December distribution for simpler non-registered bookkeeping.

Read the guide →

Not sure which tier fits you?

Answer six questions. The tool maps your answers to an allocation category and shows example ETFs in that category. Output is a category, not a recommendation.

Question 1 of 3

When do you plan to start drawing down this money?

Compare side-by-side

Already narrowed down to two or three? These comparisons put them in one table, with the trade-offs called out.

XEQT vs VEQT

Two functionally similar all-equity ETFs with essentially matched MERs. The decision usually comes down to distribution frequency and account-type fit.

Open the comparison →XEQT vs CAGE

Passive cap-weighted vs systematic factor-tilted. Two different bets on what drives long-run equity returns.

Open the comparison →
XEQT vs VEQT vs CAGENew

All three in one table, with an interactive cost-vs-premium chart for the factor-vs-passive trade-off.

Open the 3-way →

Why does splitting matter at all?

All-in-one ETFs are convenient by design. That convenience has two costs. First, the ETF's MER is higher than the weighted average of its underlying components, because the fund company charges for bundling and automatic rebalancing. Second, all-in-one ETFs hold US equity through Canadian-dollar wrappers, which means they pay US withholding tax on dividends even inside an RRSP, tax that would be eliminated if you held the US ETF directly.

At $500,000, the combined drag can be $500-$1,000 per year depending on the ETF and your account mix. Each leaf page above shows the exact numbers for that ETF at common portfolio sizes. The ETF Split Calculator shows your specific situation.

Calculate the split for your portfolio: ETF Split Calculator →

Frequently asked questions

Is one all-in-one ETF really enough for a whole portfolio?+
For most people, yes. A single all-equity or balanced fund holds thousands of companies across every major market and rebalances itself, which is a more diversified portfolio than most self-assembled ones. What you give up is control over asset location across your accounts and the ability to tilt toward anything in particular. That is a fair trade for anyone who would otherwise not get around to rebalancing at all.
How do I choose between the all-equity, 80/20, and 60/40 versions?+
By how much of a decline you would sit through without selling, and by when you need the money. The bond sleeve is there to make a bad year survivable, not to raise returns. An all-equity fund can fall by roughly half in a severe downturn; a 60/40 fund falls less, because the bond sleeve cushions it. What you give up for that cushion is long-run expected return, not recovery speed. It starts back from a smaller loss, and how soon either one regains its previous peak depends on what stocks and bonds do next. If you are decades from needing the money and have never watched a portfolio drop, assume your tolerance is lower than you think.
Does it matter whether I pick the iShares or Vanguard version?+
Far less than the choice of how much you hold in bonds. The equivalent funds from the two providers hold broadly similar exposure at broadly similar cost. The differences that remain are second-order: a few basis points of MER, how much Canada they hold, and whether distributions arrive quarterly or annually. Pick one and stop researching; the cost of deliberating for another six months while uninvested is larger than the gap between them.
Should I hold an all-in-one ETF in my RRSP?+
It works, but it is the account where the convenience costs the most. All-in-one funds hold US equity through Canadian-listed wrappers, so they pay the 15% US withholding tax internally even in an RRSP, where holding a US-listed fund directly would avoid it entirely. If most of your portfolio sits in an RRSP and the balance is substantial, run the numbers before defaulting to the simple option.
What happens when my situation changes and I want a different allocation?+
In a registered account you simply sell one and buy the other, at no tax cost. In a non-registered account switching realizes a capital gain, so it is worth thinking about the allocation you want to hold for a long time rather than the one that suits this year. Some investors instead hold their chosen fund and add bonds separately as they age, which avoids ever selling the core position.
Are these funds actually rebalancing, or just holding fixed weights?+
They rebalance. The fund manager buys and sells the underlying holdings to keep the target allocation, which is the service the fee pays for, and there is no trade for you to place. In a registered account that is the end of it. In a non-registered account it is not quite free: when those internal sales realize gains, the fund can allocate them to unitholders as capital-gains distributions, including reinvested ones that increase your adjusted cost base without any cash arriving. It is also why the published fee is higher than the weighted cost of the components: you are paying someone to do the maintenance the split strategies hand back to you.