CGXF.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGXF.TO returned 10.53%/yr vs 8.23%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.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 Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGXF.TO achieves a -2.14% return, which is significantly lower than NXF.TO's 32.43% return. Over the past 10 years, CGXF.TO has outperformed NXF.TO with an annualized return of 10.53%, while NXF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 8.23% annualized return.

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%

NXF.TO

• 1D: 1.17%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 32.43%
• 6M: 29.37%
• 1Y: 45.90%
• 3Y*: 15.64%
• 5Y*: 17.39%
• 10Y*: 8.23%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	-2.14%	114.19%	11.88%	1.43%	1.89%	-6.21%	15.23%	20.53%	-18.76%	5.51%
NXF.TO CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)	32.43%	9.19%	-4.66%	6.48%	43.93%	40.64%	-35.30%	6.23%	-9.27%	3.08%

Correlation

The correlation between CGXF.TO and NXF.TO is -0.04, 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	-0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2015	0.15

The correlation between CGXF.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (1 year) to 0.19 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGXF.TO	NXF.TO
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.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: 31
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

NXF.TO

NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 73
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 64
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. NXF.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 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.

	CGXF.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	2.36	-1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	3.03	-1.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.38	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.64	4.90	-3.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.17	13.97	-9.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGXF.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGXF.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	2.36	-1.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	0.75	-0.19
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.35	0.32	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	0.22	-0.17

Drawdowns

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -88.66%, which is greater than NXF.TO's maximum drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGXF.TO and NXF.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGXF.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.66%	-65.25%	-23.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.39%	-9.41%	-17.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.39%	-24.26%	-3.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.19%	-24.26%	-12.93%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.68%	-65.25%	+25.57%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.36%	-5.01%	-19.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.71%	-16.04%	-14.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.76%	3.30%	+7.46%

Volatility

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a higher volatility of 14.76% compared to CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) at 7.55%. This indicates that CGXF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGXF.TO	NXF.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.76%	7.55%	+7.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.10%	15.65%	+16.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.82%	19.57%	+20.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.85%	23.39%	+7.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.30%	26.16%	+4.14%

Dividends

CGXF.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.61%, more than NXF.TO's 8.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
NXF.TO CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)	8.04%	7.70%	8.50%	8.60%	11.22%	9.48%	11.23%	7.83%	9.38%	6.50%	8.24%	8.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGXF.TO and NXF.TO in my portfolio?

CGXF.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

What is the main difference between CGXF.TO and NXF.TO?

CGXF.TO is categorized as Gold, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.