LEAD.TO vs. PFLS.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

LEAD.TO (Evolve Future Leadership Fund) and PFLS.TO (PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LEAD.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Evolve Funds Group Inc., while PFLS.TO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by PICTON Investments. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LEAD.TO returned 5.58%/yr vs 10.28%/yr for PFLS.TO. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LEAD.TO charges 0.92%/yr vs 6.48%/yr for PFLS.TO.

Performance

LEAD.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.TO) and PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.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 PFLS.TO's 8.20% 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%

PFLS.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.40%
• 6M: 6.14%
• YTD: 8.20%
• 1Y: 16.31%
• 3Y*: 14.01%
• 5Y*: 10.28%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.84%

*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)
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	CA$5.33K	CA$6.18K	CA$7.84K
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	CA$110.34K	CA$123.83K	CA$187.96K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	-4.13%	12.13%	38.23%	34.98%	-34.79%	14.98%	7.95%
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	8.20%	13.69%	19.22%	6.68%	0.48%	18.51%	16.48%

Correlation

The correlation between LEAD.TO and PFLS.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	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2020	0.31

Return for Risk

LEAD.TO vs. PFLS.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

PFLS.TO

PFLS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 75
PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PFLS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
PFLS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 78
PFLS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
PFLS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. PFLS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.TO) and PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.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	PFLS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.18	1.78	-1.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.12	2.52	-2.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.33	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.15	2.35	-2.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.33	9.80	-10.12

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

The current LEAD.TO Sharpe Ratio is -0.18, which is lower than the PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LEAD.TO and PFLS.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. PFLS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LEAD.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.80%, which is greater than PFLS.TO's maximum drawdown of -11.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEAD.TO and PFLS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LEAD.TO	PFLS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.80%	-11.82%	-27.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.65%	-6.98%	-15.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.65%	-9.40%	-13.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.80%	-11.10%	-28.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.30%	-0.78%	-8.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.81%	-2.36%	-11.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.12%	1.67%	+8.45%

Volatility

LEAD.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Volatility Comparison

Evolve Future Leadership Fund (LEAD.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.40% compared to PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund (PFLS.TO) at 1.98%. This indicates that LEAD.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFLS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LEAD.TO	PFLS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.40%	1.98%	+3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.99%	7.20%	+7.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	9.20%	+9.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.80%	12.54%	+9.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.02%	13.40%	+7.62%

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

LEAD.TO has a 0.92% expense ratio, which is lower than PFLS.TO's 6.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

LEAD.TO vs. PFLS.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LEAD.TO Evolve Future Leadership Fund	11.67%	9.21%	5.84%	7.25%	9.02%	5.44%	1.48%
PFLS.TO PICTON Long Short Equity Alternative Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LEAD.TO and PFLS.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 PFLS.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 PFLS.TO?

LEAD.TO is cheaper with a 0.92% expense ratio, compared with 6.48% for PFLS.TO.

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

LEAD.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while PFLS.TO is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: Evolve Funds Group Inc. and PICTON Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.92% for LEAD.TO and 6.48% for PFLS.TO.