PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGR.TO (iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF) and BGRT.NEO (BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series) are both REIT funds. CGR.TO is passively managed, while BGRT.NEO is actively managed. Over the past year, CGR.TO returned 9.02% vs 6.97% for BGRT.NEO. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGR.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 1.01%/yr for BGRT.NEO.

Performance

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF (CGR.TO) and BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series (BGRT.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGR.TO achieves a 7.84% return, which is significantly higher than BGRT.NEO's 6.70% return.

CGR.TO

1D
-0.12%
1M
-0.61%
YTD
7.84%
6M
6.09%
1Y
9.02%
3Y*
9.97%
5Y*
3.60%
10Y*
3.96%

BGRT.NEO

1D
0.00%
1M
-0.56%
YTD
6.70%
6M
5.55%
1Y
6.97%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
CGR.TO
iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF		7.84%2.56%9.99%11.88%
BGRT.NEO
BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series		6.70%1.51%5.79%8.18%

Correlation

The correlation between CGR.TO and BGRT.NEO is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2023

0.21

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF

BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series

Often compared with CGR.TO:
CGR.TO vs. XRE.TOCGR.TO vs. REETCGR.TO vs. RS.TOCGR.TO vs. VFV.TOCGR.TO vs. ^GSPCCGR.TO vs. VCRCGR.TO vs. VNQI
Often compared with BGRT.NEO:
BGRT.NEO vs. MREL.TOBGRT.NEO vs. RIT.TOBGRT.NEO vs. VRE.TOBGRT.NEO vs. XRE.TOBGRT.NEO vs. ZEQT.TOBGRT.NEO vs. ZUQ.TOBGRT.NEO vs. HCRE.TO

Return for Risk

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGR.TO
CGR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
CGR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
CGR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
BGRT.NEO
BGRT.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
BGRT.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BGRT.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
BGRT.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
BGRT.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
BGRT.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
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.

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF (CGR.TO) and BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series (BGRT.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.

CGR.TOBGRT.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.72
0.72

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.08
0.96

+0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.35

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.95

1.13

-0.19

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.03

3.09

-0.06

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

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGR.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is comparable to the BGRT.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGR.TO and BGRT.NEO, 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

CGR.TOBGRT.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72

0.72

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.24

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.54

-0.26

Drawdowns

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGR.TO drawdown since its inception was -52.90%, which is greater than BGRT.NEO's maximum drawdown of -16.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGR.TO and BGRT.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGR.TOBGRT.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.90%

-16.06%

-36.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.55%

-6.17%

-3.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.40%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.76%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.71%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.99%

-2.24%

-0.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.98%

-4.02%

-5.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.99%

2.26%

+0.73%

Volatility

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF (CGR.TO) has a higher volatility of 3.77% compared to BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series (BGRT.NEO) at 2.59%. This indicates that CGR.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGRT.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGR.TOBGRT.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.77%

2.59%

+1.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.87%

8.12%

+1.75%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.51%

9.72%

+2.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.01%

14.17%

+0.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.56%

14.17%

+2.39%

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGR.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than BGRT.NEO's 1.01% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGR.TO vs. BGRT.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CGR.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%, less than BGRT.NEO's 3.94% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BGRT.NEO
BMO Global REIT Fund Active ETF Series		3.94%4.14%4.03%1.86%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CGR.TO
iShares Global Real Estate Index ETF		2.33%2.51%2.52%2.59%2.40%1.70%2.22%2.10%2.54%4.25%2.83%2.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGR.TO and BGRT.NEO have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CGR.TO is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CGR.TO is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 1.01% for BGRT.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CGR.TO and 1.01% for BGRT.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGR.TO and BGRT.NEO

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