CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) and HEQT.TO (Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMGG.TO returned 20.56%/yr vs 16.77%/yr for HEQT.TO. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMGG.TO charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for HEQT.TO.

Performance

CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.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 Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF (HEQT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMGG.TO achieves a 21.24% return, which is significantly higher than HEQT.TO's 13.56% return.

CMGG.TO

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 10.96%
• YTD: 21.24%
• 6M: 21.36%
• 1Y: 38.88%
• 3Y*: 35.34%
• 5Y*: 20.56%
• 10Y*: —

HEQT.TO

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 6.87%
• YTD: 13.56%
• 6M: 13.18%
• 1Y: 31.58%
• 3Y*: 25.58%
• 5Y*: 16.77%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	21.24%	21.00%	52.95%	24.21%	-21.16%	11.08%
HEQT.TO Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF	13.56%	19.82%	25.95%	31.63%	-12.65%	20.56%

Correlation

The correlation between CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021	0.50

Over the past year, CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.50, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.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: 69
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 60

HEQT.TO

HEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 80
HEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
HEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
HEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 82
HEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
HEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. HEQT.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 Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF (HEQT.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.

	CMGG.TO	HEQT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	2.65	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	3.70	-0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.50	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.85	3.74	+0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.77	16.49	-5.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the HEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMGG.TO and HEQT.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CMGG.TO	HEQT.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	2.65	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.14	1.10	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.98	1.05	-0.08

Drawdowns

CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, smaller than the maximum HEQT.TO drawdown of -31.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMGG.TO	HEQT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.00%	-31.82%	+2.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.15%	-8.49%	-1.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.85%	-15.33%	-7.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.00%	-24.25%	-4.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.58%	+0.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.91%	-4.29%	-4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.62%	1.92%	+1.70%

Volatility

CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.68% compared to Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF (HEQT.TO) at 3.53%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMGG.TO	HEQT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.68%	3.53%	+3.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.94%	9.67%	+3.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	11.96%	+4.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.22%	15.33%	+2.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.49%	17.16%	+1.33%

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

CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than HEQT.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMGG.TO vs. HEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison

CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HEQT.TO Horizons All-Equity Asset Allocation ETF	1.61%	1.70%	3.22%	7.85%	7.31%	0.48%	1.40%	0.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO in my portfolio?

CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CMGG.TO or HEQT.TO?

On fees, HEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMGG.TO or HEQT.TO?

HEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

What is the main difference between CMGG.TO and HEQT.TO?

They also come from different issuers: CI Global Asset Management and Horizons. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CMGG.TO and 0.20% for HEQT.TO.