MEQT.TO vs. CLML.TO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MEQT.TO (Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF) and CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MEQT.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while CLML.TO is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MEQT.TO returned 25.74% vs 32.66% for CLML.TO. Their 0.44 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. MEQT.TO charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for CLML.TO.

Performance

MEQT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.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, MEQT.TO achieves a 12.84% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 24.04% return.

MEQT.TO

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: -1.97%
• 6M: 10.00%
• YTD: 12.84%
• 1Y: 25.74%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.44%

CLML.TO

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: -8.07%
• 6M: 16.20%
• YTD: 24.04%
• 1Y: 32.66%
• 3Y*: 36.77%
• 5Y*: 20.37%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.28%

*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$201.62K	CA$413.31K	CA$399.13K
MEQT.TO Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF	CA$180.94K	CA$187.75K	CA$184.59K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEQT.TO Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF	12.84%	21.31%	25.87%	2.36%
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	24.04%	25.21%	63.19%	5.28%

Correlation

The correlation between MEQT.TO and CLML.TO is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2023	0.44

The correlation between MEQT.TO and CLML.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.44 (all time) to 0.56 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MEQT.TO

MEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 85
MEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
MEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
MEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 86
MEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
MEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 86

CLML.TO

CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 53
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 49
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.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.

	MEQT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.30	+0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	1.88	+1.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.23	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.34	1.97	+1.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.47	7.95	+5.52

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

The current MEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEQT.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

MEQT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEQT.TO drawdown since its inception was -15.14%, smaller than the maximum CLML.TO drawdown of -28.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEQT.TO and CLML.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEQT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.14%	-28.17%	+13.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.68%	-15.61%	+7.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.94%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.25%	-11.92%	+9.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.30%	-8.87%	+7.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	3.86%	-1.96%

Volatility

MEQT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF (MEQT.TO) is 3.77%, while CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a volatility of 7.85%. This indicates that MEQT.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

	MEQT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.77%	7.85%	-4.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.21%	19.77%	-9.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.14%	23.72%	-11.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.05%	21.27%	-9.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.05%	21.17%	-9.12%

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

MEQT.TO has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than CLML.TO's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEQT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison

MEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, while CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MEQT.TO Mackenzie All-Equity Allocation ETF	1.47%	1.60%	1.73%	0.81%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

MEQT.TO and CLML.TO have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, MEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

MEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CLML.TO.

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

MEQT.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while CLML.TO is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Mackenzie and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for MEQT.TO and 0.99% for CLML.TO.