PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEQT.TO (CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF) and GBAL.TO (iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEQT.TO returned 22.17%/yr vs 15.59%/yr for GBAL.TO. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEQT.TO charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for GBAL.TO.

Performance

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF (CEQT.TO) and iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEQT.TO achieves a 13.14% return, which is significantly higher than GBAL.TO's 9.21% return.

CEQT.TO

1D
0.75%
1M
6.45%
YTD
13.14%
6M
13.90%
1Y
32.12%
3Y*
22.17%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

GBAL.TO

1D
-0.24%
1M
5.86%
YTD
9.21%
6M
7.46%
1Y
17.91%
3Y*
15.59%
5Y*
9.01%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
CEQT.TO
CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF		13.14%18.84%27.38%6.47%
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		9.21%11.77%17.38%8.56%

Correlation

The correlation between CEQT.TO and GBAL.TO is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.43

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2023

0.30

The correlation between CEQT.TO and GBAL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.43 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF

iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio

Often compared with CEQT.TO:
CEQT.TO vs. ZEQT.TOCEQT.TO vs. VXM-B.TOCEQT.TO vs. PYF.TOCEQT.TO vs. CSBG.NEOCEQT.TO vs. CCOM.TOCEQT.TO vs. TEQT.TOCEQT.TO vs. MIX.TO
Often compared with GBAL.TO:
GBAL.TO vs. XBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. EAORGBAL.TO vs. GEQT.TOGBAL.TO vs. XIN.TOGBAL.TO vs. GGRO.TOGBAL.TO vs. VBAL.TOGBAL.TO vs. VFV.TO

Return for Risk

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CEQT.TO
CEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
CEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
CEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO
GBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF (CEQT.TO) and iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.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.

CEQT.TOGBAL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.05
1.91

+1.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.90
2.78

+2.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.03

1.36

+0.67

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.44

2.81

+1.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.96

11.18

+6.78

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.05, which is higher than the GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEQT.TO and GBAL.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CEQT.TOGBAL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.05

1.91

+1.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.93

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.67

1.03

+0.64

Drawdowns

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEQT.TO drawdown since its inception was -14.02%, smaller than the maximum GBAL.TO drawdown of -18.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEQT.TO and GBAL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEQT.TOGBAL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.02%

-18.92%

+4.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.26%

-6.40%

-0.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.02%

-10.24%

-3.78%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-18.92%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.24%

+0.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.19%

-4.30%

+3.11%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.79%

1.61%

+0.18%

Volatility

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF (CEQT.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.70% compared to iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) at 3.20%. This indicates that CEQT.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GBAL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEQT.TOGBAL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.70%

3.20%

+0.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.81%

7.87%

+0.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.58%

9.42%

+1.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.11%

9.70%

+3.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.11%

9.54%

+3.57%

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEQT.TO has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than GBAL.TO's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEQT.TO vs. GBAL.TO - Dividend Comparison

CEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than GBAL.TO's 1.71% yield.

PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
CEQT.TO
CI Equity Asset Allocation ETF		0.90%1.25%1.82%1.06%0.00%0.00%0.00%
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio		1.71%1.83%1.84%2.40%1.87%1.43%0.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEQT.TO and GBAL.TO have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GBAL.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GBAL.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CEQT.TO.

They also come from different issuers: CI and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CEQT.TO and 0.25% for GBAL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEQT.TO and GBAL.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