PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

CMAG.TO (CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CMAG.TO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMAG.TO returned 13.00%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund (CMAG.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMAG.TO achieves a 19.65% return, which is significantly higher than NXF.TO's 14.91% return.

CMAG.TO

1D
1.88%
1M
4.29%
YTD
19.65%
6M
18.78%
1Y
25.76%
3Y*
26.00%
5Y*
13.00%
10Y*
—

NXF.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
-9.01%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.49%
1Y
23.67%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
14.15%
10Y*
6.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
CMAG.TO
CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund		19.65%13.08%37.11%16.07%-19.04%9.21%34.62%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		14.91%9.09%-4.58%6.48%43.93%40.62%-31.15%

Correlation

The correlation between CMAG.TO and NXF.TO is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

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

-0.16

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

-0.02

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

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2020

0.10

The correlation between CMAG.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.10 (all time), 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.

CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund

CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NXF.TO:
NXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TONXF.TO vs. XEG.TONXF.TO vs. CCOM.TONXF.TO vs. CBCX.TONXF.TO vs. CEQP.TONXF.TO vs. YPLT.NEONXF.TO vs. YAVG.NEO

Return for Risk

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CMAG.TO
CMAG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
CMAG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMAG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
NXF.TO
NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund (CMAG.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.

CMAG.TONXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.29
1.20

+0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.80
1.67

+0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.21

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.24

1.35

+0.89

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.23

5.02

+1.22

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMAG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is comparable to the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMAG.TO and NXF.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

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMAG.TO drawdown since its inception was -23.94%, smaller than the maximum NXF.TO drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMAG.TO and NXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CMAG.TONXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.94%

-65.25%

+41.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.54%

-17.57%

+6.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.87%

-24.32%

+5.45%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.94%

-24.32%

+0.38%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-65.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-17.57%

+17.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.12%

-15.98%

+7.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.14%

4.73%

-0.59%

Volatility

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund (CMAG.TO) has a higher volatility of 9.23% compared to CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) at 6.34%. This indicates that CMAG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CMAG.TONXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.23%

6.34%

+2.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.19%

16.35%

+0.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.04%

19.83%

+0.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.02%

23.41%

-6.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.07%

26.03%

-8.96%

Dividends

CMAG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CMAG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while NXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.91%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CMAG.TO
CI Munro Alternative Global Growth Fund		0.00%0.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		8.91%7.70%8.50%8.60%11.22%9.46%11.24%7.83%9.39%6.49%8.24%8.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

CMAG.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CMAG.TO is categorized as Long-Short, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CMAG.TO and NXF.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