PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CLML.TO vs. XQQ.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CLML.TO is a fund fund, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Over the past 3 years, CLML.TO returned 43.47%/yr vs 26.17%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.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 iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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 35.72% return, which is significantly higher than XQQ.TO's 19.17% return.

CLML.TO

1D
-0.60%
1M
3.68%
YTD
35.72%
6M
32.06%
1Y
58.24%
3Y*
43.47%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.54%
1M
8.62%
YTD
19.17%
6M
17.53%
1Y
37.37%
3Y*
26.17%
5Y*
15.19%
10Y*
19.59%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CLML.TO
CI Global Climate Leaders Fund		35.72%25.21%63.19%12.83%-18.69%9.27%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.17%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%5.88%

Correlation

The correlation between CLML.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.57

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

0.41

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021

0.34

Over the past year, CLML.TO and XQQ.TO have become more correlated (0.57) than their long-term average of 0.34, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

CI Global Climate Leaders Fund

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with CLML.TO:
CLML.TO vs. EBNK.TOCLML.TO vs. CMGG.TOCLML.TO vs. VOOCLML.TO vs. ARCCCLML.TO vs. TDVCLML.TO vs. OXLCCLML.TO vs. XCSR.TO
Often compared with XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.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: 8989
Overall Rank
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.88
2.37

+0.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.92
3.12

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.41

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.02

2.94

+5.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

24.19

10.98

+13.20

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

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

The current CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is comparable to the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLML.TO and XQQ.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CLML.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.88

2.37

+0.50

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.68

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.88

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.13

0.86

+0.27

Drawdowns

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLML.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.17%, smaller than the maximum XQQ.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLML.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CLML.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.17%

-38.55%

+10.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.30%

-12.76%

+5.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.94%

-22.72%

-3.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-38.55%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-38.55%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.60%

-0.80%

+0.20%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.95%

-5.92%

-3.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.42%

3.41%

-0.99%

Volatility

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a higher volatility of 8.69% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) at 4.51%. This indicates that CLML.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CLML.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.69%

4.51%

+4.18%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.51%

12.01%

+4.50%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.36%

15.82%

+4.54%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.68%

22.51%

-1.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.68%

22.34%

-1.66%

Dividends

CLML.TO vs. XQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CLML.TO
CI Global Climate Leaders Fund		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

CLML.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CLML.TO and XQQ.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