CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO
CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) and GCNS.TO (iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - CLML.TO is a fund fund, while GCNS.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares. Over the past 3 years, CLML.TO returned 43.47%/yr vs 12.23%/yr for GCNS.TO. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLML.TO achieves a 35.72% return, which is significantly higher than GCNS.TO's 6.84% return.
CLML.TO
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- 3.68%
- YTD
- 35.72%
- 6M
- 32.06%
- 1Y
- 58.24%
- 3Y*
- 43.47%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GCNS.TO
- 1D
- 0.17%
- 1M
- 4.67%
- YTD
- 6.84%
- 6M
- 5.13%
- 1Y
- 13.12%
- 3Y*
- 12.23%
- 5Y*
- 6.92%
- 10Y*
- —
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund | 35.72% | 25.21% | 63.19% | 12.83% | -18.69% | 9.27% |
GCNS.TO iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio | 6.84% | 7.23% | 15.54% | 11.66% | -10.94% | 3.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLML.TO and GCNS.TO is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021 | 0.30 |
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
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CLML.TO
GCNS.TO
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) and iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.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.
| CLML.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.60 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.48 | 1.35 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 8.02 | 2.80 | +5.22 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 24.19 | 9.32 | +14.87 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CLML.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.88 | 1.59 | +1.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.13 | 0.92 | +0.21 |
Drawdowns
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLML.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.17%, which is greater than GCNS.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLML.TO and GCNS.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLML.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.17% | -15.37% | -12.80% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.30% | -4.81% | -2.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.94% | -7.38% | -18.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -15.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.60% | 0.00% | -0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.95% | -3.56% | -5.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.42% | 1.44% | +0.98% |
Volatility
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a higher volatility of 8.69% compared to iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio (GCNS.TO) at 2.47%. This indicates that CLML.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GCNS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLML.TO | GCNS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.69% | 2.47% | +6.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.51% | 5.59% | +10.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.36% | 8.49% | +11.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.68% | 8.20% | +12.48% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.68% | 7.83% | +12.85% |
Dividends
CLML.TO vs. GCNS.TO - Dividend Comparison
CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GCNS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GCNS.TO iShares ESG Conservative Balanced ETF Portfolio | 1.98% | 2.07% | 2.03% | 2.88% | 2.09% | 1.60% | 2.49% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CLML.TO and GCNS.TO have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for CLML.TO and GCNS.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