CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) and PFLS.TO (PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CMGG.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by CI Global Asset Management, while PFLS.TO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by PICTON Investments. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMGG.TO returned 16.65%/yr vs 10.28%/yr for PFLS.TO. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMGG.TO charges 0.90%/yr vs 6.48%/yr for PFLS.TO.

Performance

CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.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 PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.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 12.52% return, which is significantly higher than PFLS.TO's 8.20% return.

CMGG.TO

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -7.21%
• 6M: 12.43%
• YTD: 12.52%
• 1Y: 19.14%
• 3Y*: 31.27%
• 5Y*: 16.65%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.84%

PFLS.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.40%
• 6M: 6.14%
• YTD: 8.20%
• 1Y: 16.31%
• 3Y*: 14.01%
• 5Y*: 10.28%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.84%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	CA$370.22K	CA$731.85K	CA$972.00K
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	CA$110.34K	CA$123.83K	CA$187.96K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	12.52%	21.00%	52.95%	24.21%	-21.16%	10.52%
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	8.20%	13.69%	19.22%	6.68%	0.48%	17.85%

Correlation

The correlation between CMGG.TO and PFLS.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	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2021	0.41

The correlation between CMGG.TO and PFLS.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (all time) to 0.57 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.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: 42
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 42

PFLS.TO

PFLS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 75
PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PFLS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
PFLS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 78
PFLS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
PFLS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. PFLS.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 PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.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.TO	PFLS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	1.78	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.41	2.52	-1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.33	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	2.35	-0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.59	9.80	-5.20

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

The current CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMGG.TO and PFLS.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.

Drawdowns

CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, which is greater than PFLS.TO's maximum drawdown of -11.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and PFLS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMGG.TO	PFLS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.00%	-11.82%	-17.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.22%	-6.98%	-3.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.85%	-9.40%	-13.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.00%	-11.10%	-17.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.11%	-0.78%	-9.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.79%	-2.36%	-6.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.18%	1.67%	+2.51%

Volatility

CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.TO) at 1.98%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFLS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMGG.TO	PFLS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.93%	1.98%	+5.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.68%	7.20%	+9.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.45%	9.20%	+10.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.84%	12.54%	+6.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.88%	13.40%	+5.48%

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

CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is lower than PFLS.TO's 6.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMGG.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither CMGG.TO nor PFLS.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMGG.TO and PFLS.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.

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

On fees, CMGG.TO is cheaper at 0.90% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

CMGG.TO is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 6.48% for PFLS.TO.

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

CMGG.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while PFLS.TO is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: CI Global Asset Management and PICTON Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CMGG.TO and 6.48% for PFLS.TO.