PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

UMI.TO (CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF) and CEQP.TO (CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI.TO is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund managed by CI, while CEQP.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by CI. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF (UMI.TO) and CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

UMI.TO

1D
0.70%
1M
1.96%
YTD
8.40%
6M
8.28%
1Y
13.11%
3Y*
11.51%
5Y*
6.77%
10Y*
—

CEQP.TO

1D
0.52%
1M
0.50%
YTD
—
6M
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)
UMI.TO
CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF		4.76%
CEQP.TO
CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF		6.65%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI.TO and CEQP.TO is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2026

0.54

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF

CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF

Often compared with CEQP.TO:
CEQP.TO vs. NXF.TOCEQP.TO vs. CBCX.TOCEQP.TO vs. CCOM.TOCEQP.TO vs. CEQT.TOCEQP.TO vs. MIX.TOCEQP.TO vs. ZESG.TOCEQP.TO vs. CSBG.NEO

Return for Risk

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
UMI.TO
UMI.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
UMI.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UMI.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
UMI.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
UMI.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
UMI.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank
CEQP.TO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF (UMI.TO) and CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF (CEQP.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.

UMI.TOCEQP.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.02

—

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.62

—

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

—

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.57

—

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.84

—

—

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI.TO drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, which is greater than CEQP.TO's maximum drawdown of -8.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI.TO and CEQP.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UMI.TOCEQP.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.08%

-8.33%

-39.75%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.39%

—

—

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.03%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.03%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-1.17%

+1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.81%

-1.79%

-5.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.04%

—

—

Volatility

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UMI.TOCEQP.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.14%

—

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.54%

—

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.46%

16.82%

-2.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.15%

16.82%

+0.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.03%

16.82%

+4.21%

Dividends

UMI.TO vs. CEQP.TO - Dividend Comparison

UMI.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.37%, more than CEQP.TO's 0.09% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
CEQP.TO
CI Equity+ Asset Allocation ETF		0.09%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
UMI.TO
CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF		2.37%2.60%2.09%2.42%3.01%1.79%2.18%2.47%2.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

UMI.TO and CEQP.TO have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UMI.TO is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while CEQP.TO is Diversified Portfolio.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UMI.TO and CEQP.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