PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO

Last updated Jul 18, 2026
Documentation

MFT.TO (Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF) and HAB.TO (Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 10 years, MFT.TO returned 4.32%/yr vs 2.90%/yr for HAB.TO. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) and Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF (HAB.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFT.TO achieves a 3.12% return, which is significantly higher than HAB.TO's 1.20% return. Over the past 10 years, MFT.TO has outperformed HAB.TO with an annualized return of 4.32%, while HAB.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 2.90% annualized return.

MFT.TO

1D
0.38%
1M
0.92%
6M
2.86%
YTD
3.12%
1Y
2.89%
3Y*
5.69%
5Y*
3.83%
10Y*
4.32%

HAB.TO

1D
0.39%
1M
-0.26%
6M
0.62%
YTD
1.20%
1Y
4.56%
3Y*
6.15%
5Y*
2.06%
10Y*
2.90%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF		3.12%0.81%8.84%11.99%-6.31%5.56%-0.64%6.00%2.29%5.89%
HAB.TO
Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF		1.20%4.13%7.98%7.30%-9.51%-1.26%8.46%7.77%0.46%4.11%

Correlation

The correlation between MFT.TO and HAB.TO is 0.03, 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 (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.03

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

0.07

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

0.09

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.07

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 27, 2016

0.07

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF

Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF

Often compared with MFT.TO:
MFT.TO vs. DXO.TOMFT.TO vs. CFRN.TOMFT.TO vs. FCSB.NEOMFT.TO vs. RBO.TOMFT.TO vs. RQO.TOMFT.TO vs. RQP.TOMFT.TO vs. XIGS.TO
Often compared with HAB.TO:
HAB.TO vs. CASH.TOHAB.TO vs. CBIL.TOHAB.TO vs. CFRN.TOHAB.TO vs. CHPS.TOHAB.TO vs. DXO.TOHAB.TO vs. HBNK.TOHAB.TO vs. HSAV.TO

Return for Risk

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MFT.TO
MFT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
HAB.TO
HAB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
HAB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HAB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
HAB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
HAB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
HAB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
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.

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) and Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF (HAB.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.

MFT.TOHAB.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.13
1.01

+0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.66
1.50

+0.16

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.17

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.19

1.86

+0.33

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.24

4.86

+0.38

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is comparable to the HAB.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFT.TO and HAB.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

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFT.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.87%, smaller than the maximum HAB.TO drawdown of -23.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFT.TO and HAB.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MFT.TOHAB.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.87%

-23.78%

+2.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.33%

-2.46%

+1.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.40%

-3.28%

-0.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-7.45%

-14.20%

+6.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.87%

-23.78%

+2.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.93%

+0.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.38%

-2.58%

+1.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.55%

0.94%

-0.39%

Volatility

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) is 0.86%, while Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF (HAB.TO) has a volatility of 1.31%. This indicates that MFT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HAB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MFT.TOHAB.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.86%

1.31%

-0.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.84%

3.26%

-1.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.60%

4.53%

-1.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

3.72%

6.49%

-2.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.10%

7.84%

-2.74%

Dividends

MFT.TO vs. HAB.TO - Dividend Comparison

MFT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.24%, more than HAB.TO's 4.10% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HAB.TO
Global X Active Corporate Bond ETF		4.10%4.05%3.70%3.95%3.96%2.92%2.95%2.99%3.23%3.21%3.39%3.35%
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF		8.24%8.57%9.44%10.40%6.26%3.89%6.18%6.97%6.14%4.84%3.94%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

MFT.TO and HAB.TO have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

They also come from different issuers: Mackenzie and Global X.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MFT.TO and HAB.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