PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and NNRG.NEO (Ninepoint Energy ETF) are both Energy Equities funds - CIF.TO tracks the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index while NNRG.NEO tracks the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CIF.TO returned 18.52%/yr vs 33.81%/yr for NNRG.NEO. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 1.79%/yr for NNRG.NEO.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) 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, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly lower than NNRG.NEO's 45.59% return.

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%

NNRG.NEO

1D
1.60%
1M
-1.33%
YTD
45.59%
6M
38.09%
1Y
66.96%
3Y*
26.11%
5Y*
33.81%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%9.56%
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		45.59%19.14%13.26%-4.21%66.18%55.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and NNRG.NEO is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.13

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

0.31

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

0.37

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

0.37

Over the past year, the correlation between CIF.TO and NNRG.NEO has dropped to 0.13 - well below their long-term average of 0.37, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CIF.TO
NNRG.NEO

Utilities

46.9%

-

Industrials

31.8%

-

Energy

20.8%
100.0%

Technology

0.5%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

CIF.TO
46.9%
NNRG.NEO

-

Industrials

CIF.TO
31.8%
NNRG.NEO

-

Energy

CIF.TO
20.8%
NNRG.NEO
100.0%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.5%
NNRG.NEO

-

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
NNRG.NEO

-

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

NNRG.NEO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Ninepoint Energy ETF

Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO
Often compared with NNRG.NEO:
NNRG.NEO vs. XEG.TONNRG.NEO vs. DXMO.TONNRG.NEO vs. EFX.TONNRG.NEO vs. ENCC.TONNRG.NEO vs. IXCNNRG.NEO vs. FRU.TONNRG.NEO vs. ZWEN.TO

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO
NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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.

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) 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.

CIF.TONNRG.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
2.74

-0.41

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
3.29

-0.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.45

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.72

6.21

-2.48

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.46

13.09

+0.37

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO 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

CIF.TONNRG.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33

2.74

-0.41

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.28

0.98

+0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

1.07

-0.53

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, 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 CIF.TO and NNRG.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TONNRG.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.37%

-35.78%

-6.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-10.84%

+1.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-23.52%

+3.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-35.78%

+15.38%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.37%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-4.70%

+3.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-9.58%

+3.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.63%

5.13%

-2.50%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 5.85%, while Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) has a volatility of 10.24%. This indicates that CIF.TO 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

CIF.TONNRG.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

10.24%

-4.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

20.69%

-8.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.23%

24.53%

-9.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.56%

34.60%

-20.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

34.56%

-17.87%

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than NNRG.NEO's 1.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than NNRG.NEO's 0.51% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
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

CIF.TO and NNRG.NEO have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CIF.TO is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CIF.TO is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure 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: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO 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