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

Performance

CMGG.TO vs. VALT.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 CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.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 12.52% return, which is significantly higher than VALT.TO's -6.93% 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%

VALT.TO

1D
0.19%
1M
1.59%
6M
-19.64%
YTD
-6.93%
1Y
17.76%
3Y*
25.22%
5Y*
16.17%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
13.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CA$370.22KCA$731.85KCA$972.00K
CA$185.75KCA$223.40KCA$363.49K

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CMGG.TO
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund
12.52%21.00%52.95%24.21%-21.16%10.52%
VALT.TO
CI Gold Bullion ETF
-6.93%60.46%25.58%12.35%0.92%-3.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CMGG.TO and VALT.TO is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.23

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

0.10

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

0.11

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

0.11

The correlation between CMGG.TO and VALT.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (3 years) to 0.23 (1 year), 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.


Return for Risk

CMGG.TO vs. VALT.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: 4242
Overall Rank
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank

VALT.TO
VALT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
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. VALT.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 CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.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.TOVALT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.14

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.88

0.66

+1.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.59

1.48

+3.11

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

The current CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is higher than the VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMGG.TO and VALT.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. VALT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, which is greater than VALT.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and VALT.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CMGG.TOVALT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.00%

-27.07%

-1.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.22%

-27.07%

+16.85%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.85%

-27.07%

+4.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.00%

-27.07%

-1.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.11%

-25.75%

+15.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.79%

-6.25%

-2.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.18%

12.03%

-7.85%

Volatility

CMGG.TO vs. VALT.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.93% compared to CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) at 6.20%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VALT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CMGG.TOVALT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.93%

6.20%

+1.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.68%

24.23%

-7.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.45%

28.23%

-8.78%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.84%

18.62%

+0.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.88%

18.21%

+0.67%

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

CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than VALT.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.


Dividends

CMGG.TO vs. VALT.TO - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CMGG.TO and VALT.TO have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VALT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

CMGG.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while VALT.TO is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for CMGG.TO and 0.17% for VALT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CMGG.TO and VALT.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