PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

MGRW.TO vs. MFT.TO

Last updated Jul 18, 2026
Documentation

MGRW.TO (Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF) and MFT.TO (Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MGRW.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Mackenzie, while MFT.TO is a Corporate Bonds fund actively managed by Mackenzie. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MGRW.TO returned 11.23%/yr vs 3.83%/yr for MFT.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

MGRW.TO vs. MFT.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGRW.TO achieves a 9.95% return, which is significantly higher than MFT.TO's 3.12% return.

MGRW.TO

1D
-0.63%
1M
-0.50%
6M
6.91%
YTD
9.95%
1Y
21.44%
3Y*
18.19%
5Y*
11.23%
10Y*
—

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%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		9.95%18.19%21.41%15.35%-9.30%13.37%7.50%
MFT.TO
Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF		3.12%0.81%8.84%11.99%-6.31%5.56%3.42%

Correlation

The correlation between MGRW.TO and MFT.TO is -0.05, 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

-0.05

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

0.07

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

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2020

0.08

The correlation between MGRW.TO and MFT.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.09 (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 Growth Allocation ETF

Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF

Often compared with MGRW.TO:
MGRW.TO vs. TGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. VGRO.TOMGRW.TO vs. QDXH.TOMGRW.TO vs. QTIP.NEOMGRW.TO vs. PYF.TOMGRW.TO vs. MAAA.TOMGRW.TO vs. WSHR.NEO
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

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MGRW.TO
MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.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.

MGRW.TOMFT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.11
1.13

+0.98

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.17
1.66

+1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.20

+0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.21

2.19

+1.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.87

5.24

+7.63

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

The current MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the MFT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGRW.TO and MFT.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

MGRW.TO vs. MFT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGRW.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.20%, smaller than the maximum MFT.TO drawdown of -20.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGRW.TO and MFT.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MGRW.TOMFT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.20%

-20.87%

+3.67%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.72%

-1.33%

-5.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.17%

-3.40%

-8.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.20%

-7.45%

-9.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-20.87%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.81%

0.00%

-1.81%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.32%

-1.38%

-1.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.67%

0.55%

+1.12%

Volatility

MGRW.TO vs. MFT.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a higher volatility of 2.25% compared to Mackenzie Floating Rate Income ETF (MFT.TO) at 0.86%. This indicates that MGRW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MGRW.TOMFT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.25%

0.86%

+1.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.46%

1.84%

+6.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.26%

2.60%

+7.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.76%

3.72%

+7.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.48%

5.10%

+5.38%

Dividends

MGRW.TO vs. MFT.TO - Dividend Comparison

MGRW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, less than MFT.TO's 8.24% yield.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
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%
MGRW.TO
Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF		1.73%1.84%1.93%2.28%2.44%1.77%0.79%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

MGRW.TO and MFT.TO have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MGRW.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while MFT.TO is Corporate Bonds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MGRW.TO and MFT.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