PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares International Fundamental Common Class (CIE.NEO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIE.NEO achieves a 18.32% return, which is significantly lower than NNRG.NEO's 47.23% return.


CIE.NEO

1D
0.42%
1M
6.88%
YTD
18.32%
6M
20.08%
1Y
40.12%
3Y*
24.89%
5Y*
15.60%
10Y*
11.97%

NNRG.NEO

1D
1.12%
1M
-0.66%
YTD
47.23%
6M
39.75%
1Y
71.20%
3Y*
26.98%
5Y*
34.11%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CIE.NEO
iShares International Fundamental Common Class
18.32%34.92%12.83%15.59%-2.83%5.68%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF
47.23%19.14%13.26%-4.21%66.18%55.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO is -0.03, 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

-0.03

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

0.16

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

0.22

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2021

0.22

The correlation between CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.22 (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.


Return for Risk

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CIE.NEO
CIE.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
CIE.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIE.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIE.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
CIE.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIE.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

NNRG.NEO
NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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.

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares International Fundamental Common Class (CIE.NEO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). 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.


CIE.NEONNRG.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.55

1.48

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.63

6.60

-2.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.02

13.91

+1.11

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIE.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.89, which is comparable to the NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CIE.NEONNRG.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.89

2.92

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.13

0.99

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.44

1.08

-0.64

Drawdowns

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIE.NEO drawdown since its inception was -40.08%, which is greater than NNRG.NEO's maximum drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CIE.NEONNRG.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.08%

-35.78%

-4.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.10%

-10.84%

-0.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.44%

-23.52%

+8.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.55%

-35.78%

+15.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-3.63%

+3.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.13%

-9.58%

+2.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.68%

5.14%

-2.46%

Volatility

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares International Fundamental Common Class (CIE.NEO) is 4.82%, while Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) has a volatility of 10.30%. This indicates that CIE.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NNRG.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CIE.NEONNRG.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.82%

10.30%

-5.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.56%

20.65%

-9.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.94%

24.55%

-10.61%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.85%

34.60%

-20.75%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.18%

34.55%

-16.37%

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIE.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is lower than NNRG.NEO's 1.79% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIE.NEO vs. NNRG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CIE.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, more than NNRG.NEO's 0.51% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIE.NEO
iShares International Fundamental Common Class
2.11%2.53%2.82%3.08%3.32%2.89%2.15%3.63%3.12%2.67%2.80%2.44%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF
0.51%0.37%0.39%0.38%9.08%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CIE.NEO is cheaper at 0.73% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CIE.NEO is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

CIE.NEO is categorized as Global Equities, while NNRG.NEO is Energy Equities. CIE.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Developed ex US 1000 Index, while NNRG.NEO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Ninepoint. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CIE.NEO and 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIE.NEO and NNRG.NEO

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