CMGG.TO vs. XML.TO
CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) and XML.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both Global Equities funds. CMGG.TO is actively managed, while XML.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMGG.TO returned 20.56%/yr vs 9.34%/yr for XML.TO. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMGG.TO charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for XML.TO.
Performance
CMGG.TO vs. XML.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 XML.TO's 3.89% 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*
- —
XML.TO
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -0.91%
- YTD
- 3.89%
- 6M
- 5.30%
- 1Y
- 9.71%
- 3Y*
- 13.01%
- 5Y*
- 9.34%
- 10Y*
- 7.35%
CMGG.TO vs. XML.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% |
XML.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 3.89% | 17.56% | 14.13% | 11.69% | -6.94% | 12.86% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMGG.TO and XML.TO is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021 | 0.26 |
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. XML.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CMGG.TO
XML.TO
CMGG.TO vs. XML.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 MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.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 | XML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.51 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.40 | 1.23 | +0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.85 | 2.00 | +1.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.77 | 5.42 | +5.36 |
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 | XML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.36 | 1.15 | +1.22 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | 0.97 | +0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.61 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.98 | 0.62 | +0.36 |
Drawdowns
CMGG.TO vs. XML.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.00%, roughly equal to the maximum XML.TO drawdown of -28.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMGG.TO and XML.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMGG.TO | XML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.00% | -28.62% | -0.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.15% | -4.88% | -5.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.85% | -7.46% | -15.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.00% | -12.34% | -16.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -28.62% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -4.26% | +4.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.91% | -3.41% | -5.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.62% | 1.80% | +1.82% |
Volatility
CMGG.TO vs. XML.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.68% compared to iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.TO) at 2.60%. This indicates that CMGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMGG.TO | XML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.68% | 2.60% | +4.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.94% | 6.48% | +6.46% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.53% | 8.50% | +8.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.22% | 9.70% | +8.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.49% | 12.09% | +6.40% |
CMGG.TO vs. XML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMGG.TO has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than XML.TO's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMGG.TO vs. XML.TO - Dividend Comparison
CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XML.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.66%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XML.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.66% | 2.76% | 2.67% | 2.56% | 2.02% | 1.92% | 1.11% | 3.62% | 2.77% | 1.92% | 3.34% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMGG.TO and XML.TO have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XML.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XML.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% 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 0.40% for XML.TO.
Find the right allocation for CMGG.TO and XML.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