PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) and iShares ESG Equity ETF Portfolio (GEQT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMGG.TO achieves a 24.63% return, which is significantly higher than GEQT.TO's 18.33% return.


CMGG.TO

1D
1.50%
1M
5.72%
YTD
24.63%
6M
24.63%
1Y
34.87%
3Y*
35.88%
5Y*
19.73%
10Y*

GEQT.TO

1D
1.15%
1M
4.70%
YTD
18.33%
6M
17.61%
1Y
29.22%
3Y*
23.67%
5Y*
14.52%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CMGG.TO
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund
24.63%21.00%52.95%24.21%-21.16%10.52%
GEQT.TO
iShares ESG Equity ETF Portfolio
18.33%17.86%25.42%22.35%-15.19%19.02%

Correlation

The correlation between CMGG.TO and GEQT.TO is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.81

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

0.62

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

0.50

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

0.49

Over the past year, CMGG.TO and GEQT.TO have become more correlated (0.81) than their long-term average of 0.49, 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.


Return for Risk

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CMGG.TO
CMGG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

GEQT.TO
GEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
GEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
GEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
GEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
GEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) and iShares ESG Equity ETF Portfolio (GEQT.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.


CMGG.TOGEQT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.36

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.45

3.16

+0.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.44

12.85

-3.41

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the GEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMGG.TO and GEQT.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

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, which is greater than GEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -23.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and GEQT.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CMGG.TOGEQT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.00%

-23.66%

-5.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.15%

-9.29%

-0.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.85%

-18.02%

-4.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.00%

-23.66%

-5.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.44%

0.00%

-0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.81%

-5.06%

-3.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.71%

2.28%

+1.43%

Volatility

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 9.41% compared to iShares ESG Equity ETF Portfolio (GEQT.TO) at 5.93%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CMGG.TOGEQT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.41%

5.93%

+3.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.43%

12.28%

+3.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.52%

14.61%

+3.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.63%

17.66%

+0.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.76%

17.35%

+1.41%

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than GEQT.TO's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

CMGG.TO vs. GEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison

CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
CMGG.TO
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
GEQT.TO
iShares ESG Equity ETF Portfolio
1.12%1.26%1.38%1.58%1.82%1.32%0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions


CMGG.TO and GEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

They also come from different issuers: CI Global Asset Management and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CMGG.TO and 0.25% for GEQT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CMGG.TO and GEQT.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