CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO
CEQP.TO (CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF) and GRO.TO (Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEQP.TO charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for GRO.TO.
Performance
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
CEQP.TO
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- 4.99%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GRO.TO
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 4.49%
- YTD
- 8.77%
- 6M
- 11.39%
- 1Y
- 23.55%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF | 7.21% |
GRO.TO Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio | 6.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEQP.TO and GRO.TO is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2026 | 0.08 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CEQP.TO
GRO.TO
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.TO) and Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO). 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.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CEQP.TO | GRO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 3.00 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.37 | 1.54 | -0.16 |
Drawdowns
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEQP.TO drawdown since its inception was -8.33%, smaller than the maximum GRO.TO drawdown of -12.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEQP.TO and GRO.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEQP.TO | GRO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.33% | -12.96% | +4.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.81% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.19% | +0.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.89% | -1.25% | -0.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.22% | — |
Volatility
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEQP.TO | GRO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.33% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.61% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.40% | 7.88% | +8.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.40% | 11.89% | +4.51% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.40% | 11.89% | +4.51% |
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEQP.TO has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than GRO.TO's 0.21% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEQP.TO vs. GRO.TO - Dividend Comparison
CEQP.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than GRO.TO's 2.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GRO.TO Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio | 2.13% | 2.04% | 1.50% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEQP.TO and GRO.TO have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GRO.TO is cheaper at 0.21% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CEQP.TO.
They also come from different issuers: CI and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CEQP.TO and 0.21% for GRO.TO.
Find the right allocation for CEQP.TO and GRO.TO
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