PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

CGAA.TO (CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool) and CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) are both exchange-traded funds - CGAA.TO is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by CI, while CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGAA.TO returned 6.25%/yr vs 8.98%/yr for CGXF.TO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool (CGAA.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGAA.TO achieves a 3.81% return, which is significantly higher than CGXF.TO's -10.85% return. Over the past 10 years, CGAA.TO has underperformed CGXF.TO with an annualized return of 6.25%, while CGXF.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 8.98% annualized return.

CGAA.TO

1D
0.48%
1M
0.52%
YTD
3.81%
6M
4.01%
1Y
12.82%
3Y*
12.34%
5Y*
7.25%
10Y*
6.25%

CGXF.TO

1D
-0.42%
1M
-12.86%
YTD
-10.85%
6M
-11.69%
1Y
34.42%
3Y*
29.81%
5Y*
17.47%
10Y*
8.98%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGAA.TO
CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool		3.81%10.61%16.99%9.22%-11.13%15.14%11.57%15.08%-17.29%7.77%
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		-10.85%114.18%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%15.22%20.53%-18.76%5.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CGAA.TO and CGXF.TO is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.13

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

0.05

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.09

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2011

0.07

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common

Often compared with CGXF.TO:
CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TOCGXF.TO vs. CCOM.TOCGXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TOCGXF.TO vs. AGCC.TOCGXF.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGXF.TO vs. HGGG.TOCGXF.TO vs. CMNY.TO

Return for Risk

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGAA.TO
CGAA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
CGAA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGAA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGAA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
CGAA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGAA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO
CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
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.

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool (CGAA.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

CGAA.TOCGXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.23
0.82

+0.42

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.88
1.26

+0.62

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.17

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.70

1.03

+0.67

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.00

2.60

+3.41

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGAA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is higher than the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGAA.TO and CGXF.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...

Drawdowns

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGAA.TO drawdown since its inception was -41.34%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -91.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGAA.TO and CGXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGAA.TOCGXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.34%

-91.79%

+50.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.59%

-33.65%

+26.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.64%

-33.65%

+22.01%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.23%

-37.19%

+19.96%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.56%

-39.68%

+16.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.68%

-31.10%

+30.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.47%

-44.90%

+37.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.14%

13.28%

-11.14%

Volatility

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool (CGAA.TO) is 3.43%, while CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a volatility of 15.71%. This indicates that CGAA.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGAA.TOCGXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.43%

15.71%

-12.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.48%

34.84%

-26.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.43%

42.29%

-31.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.62%

31.50%

-19.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.25%

30.66%

-18.41%

Dividends

CGAA.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGAA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, less than CGXF.TO's 13.05% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGAA.TO
CI Global Asset Allocation Private Pool		1.72%1.57%2.00%2.19%2.21%0.91%1.14%2.66%3.74%3.36%3.12%3.20%
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		13.05%7.43%8.09%8.93%8.54%8.59%11.00%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%4.82%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGAA.TO and CGXF.TO have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGAA.TO is categorized as Global Allocation, while CGXF.TO is Gold.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGAA.TO and CGXF.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