CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO
CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) and CEQP.TO (CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI, while CEQP.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGXF.TO charges 1.08%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CEQP.TO.
Performance
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
CGXF.TO
- 1D
- -2.68%
- 1M
- 1.53%
- YTD
- -2.14%
- 6M
- 2.55%
- 1Y
- 44.73%
- 3Y*
- 30.89%
- 5Y*
- 17.02%
- 10Y*
- 10.53%
CEQP.TO
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- 4.99%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common | -20.84% |
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF | 7.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGXF.TO and CEQP.TO is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2026 | 0.11 |
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
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGXF.TO
CEQP.TO
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) and CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.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.
| CGXF.TO | CEQP.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.64 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.17 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGXF.TO | CEQP.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.13 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.56 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.35 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.05 | 1.37 | -1.32 |
Drawdowns
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -88.66%, which is greater than CEQP.TO's maximum drawdown of -8.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGXF.TO and CEQP.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGXF.TO | CEQP.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -88.66% | -8.33% | -80.33% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.39% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.39% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.36% | 0.00% | -24.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.71% | -1.89% | -28.82% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.76% | — | — |
Volatility
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGXF.TO | CEQP.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.76% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 32.10% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.82% | 16.40% | +23.42% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.85% | 16.40% | +14.45% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.30% | 16.40% | +13.90% |
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGXF.TO has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is higher than CEQP.TO's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGXF.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.61%, more than CEQP.TO's 0.01% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common | 12.61% | 7.43% | 8.09% | 8.92% | 8.54% | 8.59% | 11.01% | 6.69% | 7.97% | 6.99% | 10.68% | 11.75% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGXF.TO and CEQP.TO have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CEQP.TO is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CEQP.TO is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.
CGXF.TO is categorized as Gold, while CEQP.TO is Diversified Portfolio. Their fees differ too: 1.08% for CGXF.TO and 0.30% for CEQP.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGXF.TO and CEQP.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