EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO
EVO.TO (Evovest Global Equity ETF) and CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EVO.TO returned 10.06% vs 38.88% for CMGG.TO. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EVO.TO charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for CMGG.TO.
Performance
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EVO.TO achieves a 8.74% return, which is significantly lower than CMGG.TO's 21.24% return.
EVO.TO
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- 3.77%
- YTD
- 8.74%
- 6M
- -0.44%
- 1Y
- 10.06%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CMGG.TO
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 10.96%
- YTD
- 21.24%
- 6M
- 21.36%
- 1Y
- 38.88%
- 3Y*
- 35.34%
- 5Y*
- 20.56%
- 10Y*
- —
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
EVO.TO Evovest Global Equity ETF | 8.74% | 14.20% | 6.29% |
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 21.24% | 21.00% | 22.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between EVO.TO and CMGG.TO is 0.56, 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2024 | 0.52 |
The correlation between EVO.TO and CMGG.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.56 - 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
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO — Risk / Return Rank
EVO.TO
CMGG.TO
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Evovest Global Equity ETF (EVO.TO) and CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.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.
| EVO.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.22 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.40 | -0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.86 | 3.85 | -2.99 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.48 | 10.77 | -8.29 |
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
| EVO.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.65 | 2.36 | -1.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.14 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.82 | 0.98 | -0.16 |
Drawdowns
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EVO.TO drawdown since its inception was -12.72%, smaller than the maximum CMGG.TO drawdown of -29.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVO.TO and CMGG.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EVO.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.72% | -29.00% | +16.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.77% | -10.15% | -1.62% |
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 | -1.51% | 0.00% | -1.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.42% | -8.91% | +6.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.06% | 3.62% | +0.44% |
Volatility
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Evovest Global Equity ETF (EVO.TO) is 3.45%, while CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a volatility of 6.68%. This indicates that EVO.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMGG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EVO.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.45% | 6.68% | -3.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.42% | 12.94% | +0.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.43% | 16.53% | -1.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 18.22% | -1.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 18.49% | -1.80% |
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
EVO.TO has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than CMGG.TO's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
EVO.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Dividend Comparison
EVO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, while CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EVO.TO Evovest Global Equity ETF | 0.56% | 0.61% | 0.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EVO.TO and CMGG.TO have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CMGG.TO is cheaper at 0.90% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CMGG.TO is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for EVO.TO.
They also come from different issuers: National Bank Investments and CI Global Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for EVO.TO and 0.90% for CMGG.TO.
Find the right allocation for EVO.TO and CMGG.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