FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

FGLS.NEO (Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF) and CRED.TO (CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FGLS.NEO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Fidelity, while CRED.TO is a Investment Grade Bonds fund actively managed by CI Global Asset Management. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FGLS.NEO returned 8.09% vs 3.16% for CRED.TO. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FGLS.NEO charges 1.51%/yr vs 1.94%/yr for CRED.TO.

Performance

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) and CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FGLS.NEO achieves a 6.44% return, which is significantly higher than CRED.TO's 1.05% return.

FGLS.NEO

• 1D: 5.45%
• 1M: 9.25%
• 6M: 6.94%
• YTD: 6.44%
• 1Y: 8.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -3.78%

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%

*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
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	CA$98.45K	CA$628.31K	CA$493.48K

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	6.44%	8.38%	-21.20%
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	1.05%	2.77%	7.97%

Correlation

The correlation between FGLS.NEO and CRED.TO is 0.07, 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	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024	0.02

Return for Risk

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGLS.NEO

FGLS.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 18
FGLS.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
FGLS.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FGLS.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FGLS.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FGLS.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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

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.

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) and CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.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.

	FGLS.NEO	CRED.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.29	1.71	-1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.64	2.51	-1.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.36	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	2.09	-1.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.78	7.08	-6.30

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGLS.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 0.29, which is lower than the CRED.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGLS.NEO and CRED.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

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGLS.NEO drawdown since its inception was -25.89%, which is greater than CRED.TO's maximum drawdown of -10.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGLS.NEO and CRED.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGLS.NEO	CRED.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.89%	-10.05%	-15.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.12%	-1.52%	-19.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.82%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-6.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.21%	-0.30%	-8.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.41%	-1.45%	-12.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.39%	0.45%	+9.94%

Volatility

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) has a higher volatility of 12.93% compared to CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.TO) at 0.52%. This indicates that FGLS.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CRED.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGLS.NEO	CRED.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.93%	0.52%	+12.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.31%	1.46%	+20.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.32%	1.86%	+26.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.35%	2.69%	+21.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.35%	3.44%	+20.91%

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGLS.NEO has a 1.51% expense ratio, which is lower than CRED.TO's 1.94% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGLS.NEO vs. CRED.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

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%
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FGLS.NEO and CRED.TO have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FGLS.NEO or CRED.TO?

On fees, FGLS.NEO is cheaper at 1.51% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGLS.NEO or CRED.TO?

FGLS.NEO is cheaper with a 1.51% expense ratio, compared with 1.94% for CRED.TO.

What is the main difference between FGLS.NEO and CRED.TO?

FGLS.NEO is categorized as Long-Short, while CRED.TO is Investment Grade Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and CI Global Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 1.51% for FGLS.NEO and 1.94% for CRED.TO.