PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (CIAI.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIAI.TO achieves a 19.72% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 24.04% return.


CIAI.TO

1D
2.56%
1M
-4.04%
6M
17.06%
YTD
19.72%
1Y
31.56%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
31.70%

CLML.TO

1D
0.55%
1M
-8.07%
6M
17.71%
YTD
24.04%
1Y
32.66%
3Y*
36.77%
5Y*
20.37%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
20.28%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CA$1.13MCA$1.20MCA$2.71M
CA$201.36KCA$413.19KCA$399.09K

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
CIAI.TO
CI Global Artificial Intelligence ETF
19.72%18.84%29.92%
CLML.TO
CI Global Climate Leaders Fund
24.04%25.21%20.54%

Correlation

The correlation between CIAI.TO and CLML.TO is 0.66, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2024

0.58

The correlation between CIAI.TO and CLML.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CIAI.TO
CIAI.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
CIAI.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIAI.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIAI.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
CIAI.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIAI.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

CLML.TO
CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (CIAI.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.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.


CIAI.TOCLML.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.23

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.44

1.97

-0.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.79

7.95

-4.17

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIAI.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.96, which is comparable to the CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIAI.TO and CLML.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

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIAI.TO drawdown since its inception was -31.22%, which is greater than CLML.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIAI.TO and CLML.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CIAI.TOCLML.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.22%

-28.17%

-3.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.93%

-15.61%

-3.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.81%

-11.92%

+2.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.50%

-8.87%

+2.37%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

3.86%

+3.34%

Volatility

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Global Artificial Intelligence ETF (CIAI.TO) has a higher volatility of 10.77% compared to CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) at 7.85%. This indicates that CIAI.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CIAI.TOCLML.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.77%

7.85%

+2.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.36%

19.77%

+3.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.32%

23.72%

+4.60%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.48%

21.27%

+8.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

29.48%

21.17%

+8.31%

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIAI.TO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CLML.TO's 0.99% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIAI.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither CIAI.TO nor CLML.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CIAI.TO and CLML.TO have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CIAI.TO is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CIAI.TO is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CLML.TO.

CIAI.TO is categorized as Artificial Intelligence, while CLML.TO is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CIAI.TO and 0.99% for CLML.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIAI.TO and CLML.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