CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

CRED.TO (CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund) and VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CRED.TO is a Investment Grade Bonds fund actively managed by CI Global Asset Management, while VALT.TO is a Gold fund tracking the No Index (Physical Commodity). CRED.TO is actively managed, while VALT.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CRED.TO returned 2.92%/yr vs 16.17%/yr for VALT.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CRED.TO charges 1.94%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for VALT.TO.

Performance

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.TO) and CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CRED.TO achieves a 1.05% return, which is significantly higher than VALT.TO's -6.93% return.

CRED.TO

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -0.25%
• 6M: 0.90%
• YTD: 1.05%
• 1Y: 3.16%
• 3Y*: 5.44%
• 5Y*: 2.92%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.25%

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

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	CA$47.86K	CA$36.58K	CA$31.94K
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	CA$185.75K	CA$223.40K	CA$363.49K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	1.05%	2.77%	9.26%	6.00%	-3.41%	1.03%
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	-6.93%	60.46%	25.58%	12.35%	0.92%	-3.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CRED.TO and VALT.TO is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2021	0.08

Return for Risk

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CRED.TO

CRED.TO Risk / Return Rank: 71
CRED.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
CRED.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
CRED.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CRED.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
CRED.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 59

VALT.TO

VALT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 25
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.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.

	CRED.TO	VALT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.71	0.63	+1.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	0.97	+1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.14	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	0.66	+1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.08	1.48	+5.60

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

The current CRED.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is higher than the VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRED.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.

Drawdowns

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRED.TO drawdown since its inception was -10.05%, smaller than the maximum VALT.TO drawdown of -27.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRED.TO and VALT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRED.TO	VALT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.05%	-27.07%	+17.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.52%	-27.07%	+25.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.82%	-27.07%	+24.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-6.00%	-27.07%	+21.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-25.75%	+25.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.45%	-6.25%	+4.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.45%	12.03%	-11.58%

Volatility

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.TO) is 0.52%, while CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that CRED.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VALT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CRED.TO	VALT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.52%	6.20%	-5.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.46%	24.23%	-22.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86%	28.23%	-26.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.69%	18.62%	-15.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.44%	18.21%	-14.77%

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

CRED.TO has a 1.94% expense ratio, which is higher than VALT.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRED.TO vs. VALT.TO - Dividend Comparison

CRED.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, while VALT.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	2.97%	2.96%	2.95%	3.13%	3.21%	3.01%	2.79%
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CRED.TO and VALT.TO in my portfolio?

CRED.TO and VALT.TO have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CRED.TO or VALT.TO?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRED.TO or VALT.TO?

VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.94% for CRED.TO.

What is the main difference between CRED.TO and VALT.TO?

CRED.TO is categorized as Investment Grade Bonds, while VALT.TO is Gold. Their fees differ too: 1.94% for CRED.TO and 0.17% for VALT.TO.