PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

LONG.TO (CI Global Longevity Economy Fund) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - LONG.TO is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LONG.TO returned 10.40%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Global Longevity Economy Fund (LONG.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LONG.TO achieves a 7.64% return, which is significantly lower than NXF.TO's 14.91% return.

LONG.TO

1D
0.82%
1M
0.20%
YTD
7.64%
6M
7.66%
1Y
21.51%
3Y*
17.35%
5Y*
10.40%
10Y*
—

NXF.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
-9.01%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.49%
1Y
23.67%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
14.15%
10Y*
6.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
LONG.TO
CI Global Longevity Economy Fund		7.64%6.19%25.86%19.50%-9.01%11.77%22.32%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		14.91%9.09%-4.58%6.48%43.93%40.62%-2.48%

Correlation

The correlation between LONG.TO and NXF.TO is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.12

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.03

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2020

0.02

The correlation between LONG.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.03 (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.

CI Global Longevity Economy Fund

CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NXF.TO:
NXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TONXF.TO vs. XEG.TONXF.TO vs. CCOM.TONXF.TO vs. CBCX.TONXF.TO vs. CEQP.TONXF.TO vs. YPLT.NEONXF.TO vs. YAVG.NEO

Return for Risk

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
LONG.TO
LONG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
LONG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LONG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
LONG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
LONG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
LONG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
Martin Ratio Rank
NXF.TO
NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Global Longevity Economy Fund (LONG.TO) and CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.

LONG.TONXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.42
1.20

+0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.99
1.67

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.21

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.46

1.35

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.21

5.02

+0.19

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LONG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LONG.TO and NXF.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LONG.TO drawdown since its inception was -23.65%, smaller than the maximum NXF.TO drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LONG.TO and NXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

LONG.TONXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.65%

-65.25%

+41.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.39%

-17.57%

+1.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.45%

-24.32%

+1.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.65%

-24.32%

+0.67%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-65.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.91%

-17.57%

+15.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-15.98%

+10.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.58%

4.73%

-0.15%

Volatility

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Global Longevity Economy Fund (LONG.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.73% compared to CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) at 6.34%. This indicates that LONG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

LONG.TONXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.73%

6.34%

+0.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.94%

16.35%

-2.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.87%

19.83%

-2.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.38%

23.41%

-6.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.72%

26.03%

-8.31%

Dividends

LONG.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

LONG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while NXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.91%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LONG.TO
CI Global Longevity Economy Fund		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.33%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		8.91%7.70%8.50%8.60%11.22%9.46%11.24%7.83%9.39%6.49%8.24%8.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

LONG.TO and NXF.TO have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LONG.TO is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LONG.TO and NXF.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