PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

DGR.TO (CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - DGR.TO is a Dividend fund managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Over the past 5 years, DGR.TO returned 10.28%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF (DGR.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DGR.TO achieves a 5.64% return, which is significantly lower than NXF.TO's 14.91% return.

DGR.TO

1D
0.37%
1M
-1.64%
YTD
5.64%
6M
5.56%
1Y
13.36%
3Y*
12.68%
5Y*
10.28%
10Y*
—

NXF.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
-9.01%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.49%
1Y
23.67%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
14.15%
10Y*
6.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
DGR.TO
CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF		5.64%10.57%16.04%17.92%-8.16%24.28%10.08%28.48%-7.88%24.43%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		14.91%9.09%-4.58%6.48%43.93%40.62%-35.30%6.23%-9.26%3.08%

Correlation

The correlation between DGR.TO and NXF.TO is 0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.01

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 Jul 15, 2016

0.29

Over the past year, the correlation between DGR.TO and NXF.TO has dropped to 0.01 - well below their long-term average of 0.29, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF

CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NXF.TO:
NXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TONXF.TO vs. XEG.TONXF.TO vs. CCOM.TONXF.TO vs. CBCX.TONXF.TO vs. CEQP.TONXF.TO vs. YPLT.NEONXF.TO vs. YAVG.NEO

Return for Risk

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
DGR.TO
DGR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
DGR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DGR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
DGR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
DGR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
DGR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
NXF.TO
NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF (DGR.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.

DGR.TONXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.28
1.20

+0.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.95
1.67

+0.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.21

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.57

1.35

+0.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.30

5.02

+1.28

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DGR.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is comparable to the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DGR.TO and NXF.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

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DGR.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.73%, smaller than the maximum NXF.TO drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DGR.TO and NXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

DGR.TONXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.73%

-65.25%

+34.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.55%

-17.57%

+9.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.65%

-24.32%

+7.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.92%

-24.32%

+6.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-65.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.31%

-17.57%

+15.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.52%

-15.98%

+12.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.13%

4.73%

-2.60%

Volatility

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF (DGR.TO) is 3.43%, while CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) has a volatility of 6.34%. This indicates that DGR.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

DGR.TONXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.43%

6.34%

-2.91%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.15%

16.35%

-8.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.51%

19.83%

-9.32%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.12%

23.41%

-9.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.23%

26.03%

-10.80%

Dividends

DGR.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

DGR.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, less than NXF.TO's 8.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
DGR.TO
CI U.S. Quality Dividend Growth Index ETF		1.15%1.24%0.94%1.53%1.70%1.26%1.29%1.67%1.94%1.29%0.62%0.00%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		8.91%7.70%8.50%8.60%11.22%9.46%11.24%7.83%9.39%6.49%8.24%8.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

DGR.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DGR.TO is categorized as Dividend, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DGR.TO and NXF.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