FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO
FSF.TO (CI Global Financial Sector ETF) and VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FSF.TO is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by CI, while VALT.TO is a Gold fund tracking the No Index (Physical Commodity). FSF.TO is actively managed, while VALT.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FSF.TO returned 12.59%/yr vs 15.89%/yr for VALT.TO. Their 0.03 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. FSF.TO charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for VALT.TO.
Performance
FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FSF.TO achieves a 8.03% return, which is significantly higher than VALT.TO's -7.03% 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%
VALT.TO
- 1D
- -1.49%
- 1M
- -3.12%
- 6M
- -13.72%
- YTD
- -7.03%
- 1Y
- 18.13%
- 3Y*
- 25.59%
- 5Y*
- 15.89%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 13.88%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA$661.89 | CA$2.69K | CA$6.54K | |
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF | CA$249.71K | CA$225.55K | CA$326.67K |
FSF.TO vs. VALT.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% | 30.71% |
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF | -7.03% | 60.46% | 25.58% | 12.35% | 0.92% | -3.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between FSF.TO and VALT.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. | -0.03 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2021 | 0.03 |
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. VALT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
FSF.TO
VALT.TO
FSF.TO vs. VALT.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 Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.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 | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.15 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.11 | 0.77 | +0.35 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.27 | 1.65 | +1.63 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FSF.TO drawdown since its inception was -73.78%, which is greater than VALT.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSF.TO and VALT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FSF.TO | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.78% | -27.07% | -46.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.09% | -27.07% | +11.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.26% | -27.07% | +9.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.08% | -27.07% | +0.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.78% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.26% | -25.83% | +25.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.16% | -6.32% | -9.84% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.12% | 12.55% | -7.43% |
Volatility
FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for CI Global Financial Sector ETF (FSF.TO) is 5.02%, while CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) has a volatility of 6.01%. This indicates that FSF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VALT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FSF.TO | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.02% | 6.01% | -0.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.20% | 21.25% | -8.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.98% | 28.27% | -12.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.34% | 18.65% | +0.69% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 211.89% | 18.21% | +193.68% |
FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
FSF.TO has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than VALT.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.
Dividends
FSF.TO vs. VALT.TO - Dividend Comparison
FSF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, while VALT.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FSF.TO and VALT.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.
On fees, VALT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for FSF.TO.
FSF.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while VALT.TO is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for FSF.TO and 0.17% for VALT.TO.
Find the right allocation for FSF.TO and VALT.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