GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRO.TO (Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio) and CEQP.TO (CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRO.TO charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CEQP.TO.

Performance

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO) and CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRO.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 4.49%
• YTD: 8.77%
• 6M: 11.39%
• 1Y: 23.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEQP.TO

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 4.99%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRO.TO Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio	6.45%
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF	7.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GRO.TO and CEQP.TO is 0.08, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2026	0.08

Return for Risk

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRO.TO

GRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 90
GRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
GRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
GRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 99
GRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
GRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio (GRO.TO) and CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.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.

	GRO.TO	CEQP.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.00	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.66	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	3.54	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.07	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.41	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GRO.TO	CEQP.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.54	1.37	+0.16

Drawdowns

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -12.96%, which is greater than CEQP.TO's maximum drawdown of -8.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRO.TO and CEQP.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRO.TO	CEQP.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.96%	-8.33%	-4.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.19%	0.00%	-0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.25%	-1.89%	+0.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.22%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRO.TO	CEQP.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.33%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.61%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.88%	16.40%	-8.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.89%	16.40%	-4.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.89%	16.40%	-4.51%

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRO.TO has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is lower than CEQP.TO's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRO.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Dividend Comparison

GRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than CEQP.TO's 0.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CEQP.TO CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%
GRO.TO Franklin Growth ETF Portfolio	2.13%	2.04%	1.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRO.TO and CEQP.TO in my portfolio?

GRO.TO and CEQP.TO have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GRO.TO or CEQP.TO?

On fees, GRO.TO is cheaper at 0.21% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRO.TO or CEQP.TO?

GRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CEQP.TO.

What is the main difference between GRO.TO and CEQP.TO?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.21% for GRO.TO and 0.30% for CEQP.TO.