CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEQP.TO (CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF) and CSBG.NEO (CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. CEQP.TO charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for CSBG.NEO.

Performance

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.TO) and CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF (CSBG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CEQP.TO

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 4.99%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSBG.NEO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 0.00%
• 3Y*: 0.80%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF	7.21%
CSBG.NEO CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF	0.00%

Return for Risk

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.TO) and CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF (CSBG.NEO). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEQP.TO	CSBG.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.37	1.08	+0.29

Drawdowns

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEQP.TO drawdown since its inception was -8.33%, which is greater than CSBG.NEO's maximum drawdown of 0.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEQP.TO and CSBG.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEQP.TO	CSBG.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.33%	0.00%	-8.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	0.00%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	0.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	0.00%	-1.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.00%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CEQP.TO	CSBG.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.00%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.00%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.40%	0.00%	+16.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.40%	1.27%	+15.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.40%	1.27%	+15.13%

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEQP.TO has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CSBG.NEO's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CEQP.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, while CSBG.NEO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CSBG.NEO CIBC Sustainable Balanced Growth Solution ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.16%	1.21%	1.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Which ETF is better, CEQP.TO or CSBG.NEO?

On fees, CEQP.TO is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEQP.TO or CSBG.NEO?

CEQP.TO is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CSBG.NEO.

What is the main difference between CEQP.TO and CSBG.NEO?

They also come from different issuers: CI and CIBC. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CEQP.TO and 0.90% for CSBG.NEO.