PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.TO

Last updated Jul 18, 2026
Documentation

CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) and CMAG.TO (CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI, while CMAG.TO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGXF.TO returned 15.25%/yr vs 10.70%/yr for CMAG.TO. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGXF.TO achieves a -16.95% return, which is significantly lower than CMAG.TO's 9.57% return.

CGXF.TO

1D
-0.83%
1M
-15.81%
6M
-26.12%
YTD
-16.95%
1Y
27.34%
3Y*
23.84%
5Y*
15.25%
10Y*
7.54%

CMAG.TO

1D
-0.06%
1M
-7.03%
6M
6.03%
YTD
9.57%
1Y
13.88%
3Y*
21.54%
5Y*
10.70%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		-16.95%114.18%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%14.95%
CMAG.TO
CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund		9.57%13.08%37.11%16.07%-19.04%9.21%34.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CGXF.TO and CMAG.TO is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.33

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

0.17

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

0.14

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2020

0.17

The correlation between CGXF.TO and CMAG.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (5 years) to 0.33 (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 Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common

CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund

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. HGGG.TOCGXF.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGXF.TO vs. CMNY.TO
Often compared with CMAG.TO:
CMAG.TO vs. ARB.TOCMAG.TO vs. FCLS.NEOCMAG.TO vs. EHE.TOCMAG.TO vs. FGLS.NEOCMAG.TO vs. FSF.TOCMAG.TO vs. PMM.TOCMAG.TO vs. CMNY.TO

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGXF.TO
CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO
CMAG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
CMAG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
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.

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.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 Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund (CMAG.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.

CGXF.TOCMAG.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.64
0.66

-0.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.08
1.00

+0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

1.13

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.77

1.21

-0.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.83

3.20

-1.36

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

The current CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is comparable to the CMAG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGXF.TO and CMAG.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

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -91.79%, which is greater than CMAG.TO's maximum drawdown of -23.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGXF.TO and CMAG.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGXF.TOCMAG.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-91.79%

-23.94%

-67.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.81%

-11.54%

-24.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.81%

-18.87%

-16.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.19%

-23.94%

-13.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.68%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-35.81%

-8.43%

-27.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-44.86%

-8.10%

-36.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

14.96%

4.35%

+10.61%

Volatility

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a higher volatility of 10.52% compared to CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund (CMAG.TO) at 8.73%. This indicates that CGXF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMAG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGXF.TOCMAG.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.52%

8.73%

+1.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.15%

18.51%

+16.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.78%

21.21%

+21.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.62%

17.31%

+14.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.72%

17.26%

+13.46%

Dividends

CGXF.TO vs. CMAG.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.01%, while CMAG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		14.01%7.43%8.09%8.93%8.54%8.59%11.00%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%4.82%
CMAG.TO
CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund		0.00%0.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGXF.TO and CMAG.TO have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGXF.TO is categorized as Gold, while CMAG.TO is Long-Short.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGXF.TO and CMAG.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