PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

CGRA.TO (CI Global Real Asset Private Pool) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRA.TO is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGRA.TO returned 7.84%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Global Real Asset Private Pool (CGRA.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CGRA.TO having a 15.15% return and NXF.TO slightly lower at 14.91%.

CGRA.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
3.45%
YTD
15.15%
6M
15.15%
1Y
17.05%
3Y*
13.99%
5Y*
7.84%
10Y*
—

NXF.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
-9.01%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.49%
1Y
23.67%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
14.15%
10Y*
6.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
CGRA.TO
CI Global Real Asset Private Pool		15.15%7.16%10.58%6.33%-9.03%20.00%6.05%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		14.91%9.09%-4.58%6.48%43.93%40.62%2.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRA.TO and NXF.TO is -0.06, 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 (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.06

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

0.04

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

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2020

0.07

The correlation between CGRA.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.08 (5 years), 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 Global Real Asset Private Pool

CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NXF.TO:
NXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TONXF.TO vs. XEG.TONXF.TO vs. CCOM.TONXF.TO vs. CBCX.TONXF.TO vs. CEQP.TONXF.TO vs. YPLT.NEONXF.TO vs. YAVG.NEO

Return for Risk

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGRA.TO
CGRA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
CGRA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGRA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGRA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
CGRA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGRA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
NXF.TO
NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Real Asset Private Pool (CGRA.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.

CGRA.TONXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.04
1.20

+0.84

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.19
1.67

+1.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.70

1.21

+0.49

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.68

1.35

+1.32

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.91

5.02

+4.89

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRA.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRA.TO and NXF.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

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRA.TO drawdown since its inception was -16.03%, smaller than the maximum NXF.TO drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRA.TO and NXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGRA.TONXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.03%

-65.25%

+49.22%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.43%

-17.57%

+11.14%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.89%

-24.32%

+16.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.03%

-24.32%

+8.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-65.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-17.57%

+17.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.83%

-15.98%

+12.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.73%

4.73%

-3.00%

Volatility

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Global Real Asset Private Pool (CGRA.TO) is 2.67%, while CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) has a volatility of 6.34%. This indicates that CGRA.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGRA.TONXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.67%

6.34%

-3.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.14%

16.35%

-9.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.43%

19.83%

-11.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.12%

23.41%

-11.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.68%

26.03%

-14.35%

Dividends

CGRA.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGRA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.56%, less than NXF.TO's 8.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGRA.TO
CI Global Real Asset Private Pool		3.56%4.02%4.14%4.39%4.46%3.89%2.61%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		8.91%7.70%8.50%8.60%11.22%9.46%11.24%7.83%9.39%6.49%8.24%8.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGRA.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGRA.TO is categorized as Global Allocation, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGRA.TO and NXF.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