LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

LEAD.TO (Evolve Future Leadership Fund) and CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LEAD.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Evolve Funds Group Inc., while CLML.TO is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI Global Asset Management. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LEAD.TO returned 5.58%/yr vs 20.73%/yr for CLML.TO. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LEAD.TO charges 0.92%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for CLML.TO.

Performance

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LEAD.TO achieves a -4.13% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 25.72% return.

LEAD.TO

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: 1.87%
• 6M: -0.68%
• YTD: -4.13%
• 1Y: -3.93%
• 3Y*: 18.17%
• 5Y*: 5.58%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.63%

CLML.TO

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -7.84%
• 6M: 20.44%
• YTD: 25.72%
• 1Y: 33.44%
• 3Y*: 37.82%
• 5Y*: 20.73%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.69%

*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)
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	CA$494.12K	CA$394.47K	CA$468.54K
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	CA$5.33K	CA$6.18K	CA$7.84K

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	-4.13%	12.13%	38.23%	34.98%	-34.79%	1.30%
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	25.72%	25.21%	63.19%	12.83%	-18.69%	9.27%

Correlation

The correlation between LEAD.TO and CLML.TO is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.35

Return for Risk

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

LEAD.TO

LEAD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 10
LEAD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
LEAD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LEAD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9
LEAD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
LEAD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 10

CLML.TO

CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 68
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.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.

	LEAD.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.18	1.45	-1.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.12	2.06	-2.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.26	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.15	2.90	-3.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.33	9.65	-9.98

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LEAD.TO Sharpe Ratio is -0.18, which is lower than the CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LEAD.TO and CLML.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

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LEAD.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.80%, 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 LEAD.TO and CLML.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LEAD.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.80%	-28.17%	-11.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.65%	-11.58%	-11.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.65%	-25.94%	+3.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.80%	-28.17%	-11.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.30%	-10.72%	+1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.81%	-8.85%	-4.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.12%	3.47%	+6.65%

Volatility

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.TO) is 5.40%, while CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a volatility of 8.33%. This indicates that LEAD.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.

Volatility by Period

	LEAD.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.40%	8.33%	-2.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.99%	19.08%	-4.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	23.21%	-4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.80%	21.14%	+0.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.02%	21.08%	-0.06%

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LEAD.TO has a 0.92% expense ratio, which is lower than CLML.TO's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

LEAD.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison

LEAD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.67%, while CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	11.67%	9.21%	5.84%	7.25%	9.02%	5.44%	1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LEAD.TO and CLML.TO in my portfolio?

LEAD.TO and CLML.TO have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LEAD.TO or CLML.TO?

On fees, LEAD.TO is cheaper at 0.92% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LEAD.TO or CLML.TO?

LEAD.TO is cheaper with a 0.92% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CLML.TO.

What is the main difference between LEAD.TO and CLML.TO?

LEAD.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while CLML.TO is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Evolve Funds Group Inc. and CI Global Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.92% for LEAD.TO and 0.99% for CLML.TO.