CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO
CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) and TEQT.TO (TD All-Equity ETF Portfolio) are both Global Equities funds. CMGG.TO is actively managed, while TEQT.TO is passively managed. Over the past year, CMGG.TO returned 38.88% vs 29.82% for TEQT.TO. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CMGG.TO charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for TEQT.TO.
Performance
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMGG.TO achieves a 21.24% return, which is significantly higher than TEQT.TO's 11.59% 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*
- —
TEQT.TO
- 1D
- -0.45%
- 1M
- 5.99%
- YTD
- 11.59%
- 6M
- 11.36%
- 1Y
- 29.82%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 21.24% | 32.59% |
TEQT.TO TD All-Equity ETF Portfolio | 11.59% | 27.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMGG.TO and TEQT.TO is 0.78, 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 | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2025 | 0.80 |
The correlation between CMGG.TO and TEQT.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. TEQT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CMGG.TO
TEQT.TO
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.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 TD All-Equity ETF Portfolio (TEQT.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 | TEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.40 | 1.51 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.85 | 3.93 | -0.08 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.77 | 16.17 | -5.40 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CMGG.TO | TEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.36 | 2.70 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.98 | 2.99 | -2.01 |
Drawdowns
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, which is greater than TEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -7.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and TEQT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMGG.TO | TEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.00% | -7.62% | -21.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.15% | -7.62% | -2.53% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.85% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.00% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.45% | +0.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.91% | -1.00% | -7.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.62% | 1.85% | +1.77% |
Volatility
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.68% compared to TD All-Equity ETF Portfolio (TEQT.TO) at 3.03%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMGG.TO | TEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.68% | 3.03% | +3.65% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.94% | 8.80% | +4.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.53% | 11.10% | +5.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.22% | 12.18% | +6.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.49% | 12.18% | +6.31% |
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than TEQT.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMGG.TO vs. TEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison
CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TEQT.TO TD All-Equity ETF Portfolio | 1.31% | 1.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMGG.TO and TEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, TEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
TEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.
They also come from different issuers: CI Global Asset Management and TD. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CMGG.TO and 0.17% for TEQT.TO.
Find the right allocation for CMGG.TO and TEQT.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