FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO
FSF.TO (CI Global Financial Sector ETF) and CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FSF.TO is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by CI, while CLML.TO is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FSF.TO returned 12.59%/yr vs 20.37%/yr for CLML.TO. Their 0.22 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. Both charge a 0.99% expense ratio.
Performance
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FSF.TO achieves a 8.03% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 24.04% return.
FSF.TO
- 1D
- 1.62%
- 1M
- 2.45%
- 6M
- 6.56%
- YTD
- 8.03%
- 1Y
- 19.56%
- 3Y*
- 22.87%
- 5Y*
- 12.59%
- 10Y*
- 30.36%
- ALL TIME*
- 14.13%
CLML.TO
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- -8.07%
- 6M
- 16.20%
- YTD
- 24.04%
- 1Y
- 32.66%
- 3Y*
- 36.77%
- 5Y*
- 20.37%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 20.28%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA$201.62K | CA$413.31K | CA$399.13K | |
| CA$661.89 | CA$2.69K | CA$6.54K |
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FSF.TO CI Global Financial Sector ETF | 8.03% | 20.68% | 33.83% | 10.49% | -11.77% | 6.15% |
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund | 24.04% | 25.21% | 63.19% | 12.83% | -18.69% | 9.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between FSF.TO and CLML.TO is 0.07, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.18 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021 | 0.22 |
The correlation between FSF.TO and CLML.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (1 year) to 0.22 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO — Risk / Return Rank
FSF.TO
CLML.TO
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Financial Sector ETF (FSF.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.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.
| FSF.TO | CLML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.25 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.31 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.23 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.11 | 1.97 | -0.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.27 | 7.95 | -4.68 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FSF.TO drawdown since its inception was -73.78%, which is greater than CLML.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSF.TO and CLML.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FSF.TO | CLML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.78% | -28.17% | -45.61% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.09% | -15.61% | +0.52% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.26% | -25.94% | +8.68% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.08% | -28.17% | +2.09% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.78% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.26% | -11.92% | +11.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.16% | -8.87% | -7.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.12% | 3.86% | +1.26% |
Volatility
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for CI Global Financial Sector ETF (FSF.TO) is 5.02%, while CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a volatility of 7.85%. This indicates that FSF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FSF.TO | CLML.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.02% | 7.85% | -2.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.20% | 19.77% | -6.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.98% | 23.72% | -7.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.34% | 21.27% | -1.93% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 211.89% | 21.17% | +190.72% |
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FSF.TO and CLML.TO have an expense ratio of 0.99%.
Dividends
FSF.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison
FSF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, while CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FSF.TO CI Global Financial Sector ETF | 1.35% | 1.28% | 1.41% | 2.10% | 2.35% | 0.74% | 1.28% | 1.91% | 2.30% | 0.96% | 0.79% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FSF.TO and CLML.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.
Both ETFs have the same 0.99% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FSF.TO and CLML.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.99% per year.
FSF.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while CLML.TO is Alternative Energy Equities.
Find the right allocation for FSF.TO and CLML.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