PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

MFT.TO (Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF) and QTIP.NEO (Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - MFT.TO is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while QTIP.NEO is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Solactive US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Hedged to CAD TR Index. MFT.TO is actively managed, while QTIP.NEO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MFT.TO returned 3.71%/yr vs -0.43%/yr for QTIP.NEO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) and Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO). 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 2.53% return, which is significantly higher than QTIP.NEO's 0.24% return.

MFT.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
0.67%
6M
2.08%
YTD
2.53%
1Y
2.43%
3Y*
5.49%
5Y*
3.71%
10Y*
4.41%

QTIP.NEO

1D
0.22%
1M
-0.60%
6M
-0.27%
YTD
0.24%
1Y
1.67%
3Y*
2.34%
5Y*
-0.43%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF		2.53%0.81%8.84%11.99%-6.31%5.56%-0.64%6.00%1.49%
QTIP.NEO
Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.24%4.82%0.82%3.16%-12.98%6.05%9.48%7.49%-0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO 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

0.02

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

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2018

0.03

The correlation between MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.08 (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.

Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF

Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with QTIP.NEO:
QTIP.NEO vs. ZTIP.TOQTIP.NEO vs. QDXH.TOQTIP.NEO vs. QDX.TOQTIP.NEO vs. WSHR.NEOQTIP.NEO vs. MGRW.TOQTIP.NEO vs. MAAA.TOQTIP.NEO vs. XSTH.TO

Return for Risk

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO — 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: 3333
Overall Rank
MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
MFT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO
QTIP.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
QTIP.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
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. QTIP.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) and Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO). 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.TOQTIP.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
0.42

+0.52

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.39
0.62

+0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.07

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.84

0.77

+1.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.39

1.77

+2.62

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is higher than the QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 0.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO, 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. QTIP.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFT.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.87%, which is greater than QTIP.NEO's maximum drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MFT.TOQTIP.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.87%

-15.31%

-5.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.33%

-2.02%

+0.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.40%

-4.79%

+1.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-7.45%

-15.31%

+7.86%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.87%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-4.99%

+4.99%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.38%

-4.89%

+3.51%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.55%

0.88%

-0.33%

Volatility

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) is 0.79%, while Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO) has a volatility of 1.20%. This indicates that MFT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QTIP.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MFT.TOQTIP.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.79%

1.20%

-0.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.80%

2.73%

-0.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.61%

3.68%

-1.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

3.71%

6.23%

-2.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.10%

6.29%

-1.19%

Dividends

MFT.TO vs. QTIP.NEO - Dividend Comparison

MFT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.29%, more than QTIP.NEO's 4.02% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF		8.29%8.57%9.44%10.40%6.26%3.89%6.18%6.97%6.14%4.84%3.94%
QTIP.NEO
Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		4.02%4.54%4.53%4.76%9.47%5.24%1.55%2.29%2.91%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO 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.

MFT.TO is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while QTIP.NEO is Inflation-Protected Bonds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MFT.TO and QTIP.NEO

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