FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO
FIG.TO (CI Investment Grade Bond ETF) and MFT.TO (Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, FIG.TO returned 2.27%/yr vs 4.32%/yr for MFT.TO. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FIG.TO achieves a 1.62% return, which is significantly lower than MFT.TO's 3.12% return. Over the past 10 years, FIG.TO has underperformed MFT.TO with an annualized return of 2.27%, while MFT.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 4.32% annualized return.
FIG.TO
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- 6M
- 1.19%
- YTD
- 1.62%
- 1Y
- 4.34%
- 3Y*
- 5.55%
- 5Y*
- 0.78%
- 10Y*
- 2.27%
MFT.TO
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 0.92%
- 6M
- 2.86%
- YTD
- 3.12%
- 1Y
- 2.89%
- 3Y*
- 5.69%
- 5Y*
- 3.83%
- 10Y*
- 4.32%
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIG.TO CI Investment Grade Bond ETF | 1.62% | 5.12% | 5.10% | 6.23% | -12.53% | -1.69% | 7.78% | 6.98% | -0.12% | 5.06% |
MFT.TO Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF | 3.12% | 0.81% | 8.84% | 11.99% | -6.31% | 5.56% | -0.64% | 6.00% | 2.29% | 5.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between FIG.TO and MFT.TO is -0.04, 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 | -0.04 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 27, 2016 | 0.01 |
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
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
FIG.TO
MFT.TO
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIG.TO) and Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.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.
| FIG.TO | MFT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.20 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.92 | 2.19 | -0.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.65 | 5.24 | -0.59 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FIG.TO drawdown since its inception was -16.80%, smaller than the maximum MFT.TO drawdown of -20.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FIG.TO and MFT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FIG.TO | MFT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.80% | -20.87% | +4.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.27% | -1.33% | -0.94% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.24% | -3.40% | +0.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.97% | -7.45% | -8.52% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -16.80% | -20.87% | +4.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.53% | 0.00% | -0.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.43% | -1.38% | -2.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.94% | 0.55% | +0.39% |
Volatility
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Volatility Comparison
CI Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIG.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.64% compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) at 0.86%. This indicates that FIG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FIG.TO | MFT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.64% | 0.86% | +0.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.20% | 1.84% | +1.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.50% | 2.60% | +1.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.45% | 3.72% | +1.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.16% | 5.10% | +1.06% |
Dividends
FIG.TO vs. MFT.TO - Dividend Comparison
FIG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.06%, less than MFT.TO's 8.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FIG.TO CI Investment Grade Bond ETF | 4.06% | 4.04% | 4.08% | 4.12% | 4.19% | 3.52% | 3.34% | 3.41% | 3.60% | 4.34% | 4.69% | 5.05% |
MFT.TO Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF | 8.24% | 8.57% | 9.44% | 10.40% | 6.26% | 3.89% | 6.18% | 6.97% | 6.14% | 4.84% | 3.94% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FIG.TO and MFT.TO have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
They also come from different issuers: CI and Mackenzie.
Find the right allocation for FIG.TO and MFT.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