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

Performance

CLML.TO vs. VALT.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLML.TO achieves a 25.72% return, which is significantly higher than VALT.TO's -6.93% return.


CLML.TO

1D
-0.97%
1M
-7.84%
6M
20.44%
YTD
25.72%
1Y
33.44%
3Y*
37.82%
5Y*
20.73%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
20.69%

VALT.TO

1D
0.19%
1M
1.59%
6M
-19.64%
YTD
-6.93%
1Y
17.76%
3Y*
25.22%
5Y*
16.17%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
13.95%
*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$494.12KCA$394.47KCA$468.54K
CA$185.75KCA$223.40KCA$363.49K

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CLML.TO
CI Global Climate Leaders Fund
25.72%25.21%63.19%12.83%-18.69%9.27%
VALT.TO
CI Gold Bullion ETF
-6.93%60.46%25.58%12.35%0.92%-0.65%

Correlation

The correlation between CLML.TO and VALT.TO is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.23

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

0.15

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

0.12

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021

0.12

The correlation between CLML.TO and VALT.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (all time) to 0.23 (1 year), 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

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

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

CLML.TO
CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank

VALT.TO
VALT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
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.

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

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


CLML.TOVALT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.82

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.14

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.90

0.66

+2.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.65

1.48

+8.17

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

The current CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is higher than the VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLML.TO and VALT.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

CLML.TO vs. VALT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLML.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.17%, roughly equal to the maximum VALT.TO drawdown of -27.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLML.TO and VALT.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CLML.TOVALT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.17%

-27.07%

-1.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.58%

-27.07%

+15.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.94%

-27.07%

+1.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.17%

-27.07%

-1.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.72%

-25.75%

+15.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.85%

-6.25%

-2.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.47%

12.03%

-8.56%

Volatility

CLML.TO vs. VALT.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a higher volatility of 8.33% compared to CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) at 6.20%. This indicates that CLML.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VALT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CLML.TOVALT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.33%

6.20%

+2.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.08%

24.23%

-5.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.21%

28.23%

-5.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.14%

18.62%

+2.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.08%

18.21%

+2.87%

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

CLML.TO has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than VALT.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.


Dividends

CLML.TO vs. VALT.TO - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CLML.TO and VALT.TO have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VALT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CLML.TO.

CLML.TO is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while VALT.TO is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for CLML.TO and 0.17% for VALT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CLML.TO and VALT.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