PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

UMI.TO vs. NXF.TO

Last updated Jul 1, 2026
See Documentation

UMI.TO (CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF) and NXF.TO (CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - UMI.TO is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund managed by CI, while NXF.TO is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Over the past 5 years, UMI.TO returned 6.77%/yr vs 14.15%/yr for NXF.TO. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

UMI.TO vs. NXF.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 Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMI.TO achieves a 8.40% return, which is significantly lower than NXF.TO's 14.91% return.

UMI.TO

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

NXF.TO

1D
-0.50%
1M
-9.01%
YTD
14.91%
6M
14.49%
1Y
23.67%
3Y*
9.39%
5Y*
14.15%
10Y*
6.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UMI.TO
CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF		8.40%2.81%11.84%13.17%-6.84%27.52%-8.25%21.06%-10.77%2.61%
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		14.91%9.09%-4.58%6.48%43.93%40.62%-35.30%6.23%-9.26%5.71%

Correlation

The correlation between UMI.TO and NXF.TO 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

0.09

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

0.23

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2017

0.31

The correlation between UMI.TO and NXF.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.31 (all time), 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.

CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF

CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NXF.TO:
NXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TONXF.TO vs. XEG.TONXF.TO vs. CCOM.TONXF.TO vs. CBCX.TONXF.TO vs. CEQP.TONXF.TO vs. YPLT.NEONXF.TO vs. YAVG.NEO

Return for Risk

UMI.TO vs. NXF.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
NXF.TO
NXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
NXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

UMI.TO vs. NXF.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 Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.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.TONXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.02
1.20

-0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.62
1.67

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.21

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.57

1.35

+0.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.84

5.02

-0.17

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

The current UMI.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is comparable to the NXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMI.TO and NXF.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

UMI.TO vs. NXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMI.TO drawdown since its inception was -48.08%, smaller than the maximum NXF.TO drawdown of -65.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMI.TO and NXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UMI.TONXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.08%

-65.25%

+17.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.39%

-17.57%

+8.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.03%

-24.32%

+2.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.03%

-24.32%

+2.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-65.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.11%

-17.57%

+17.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.81%

-15.98%

+9.17%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.04%

4.73%

-1.69%

Volatility

UMI.TO vs. NXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI U.S. MidCap Dividend Index ETF (UMI.TO) is 3.14%, while CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged) (NXF.TO) has a volatility of 6.34%. This indicates that UMI.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UMI.TONXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.14%

6.34%

-3.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.54%

16.35%

-6.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.46%

19.83%

-5.37%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.15%

23.41%

-6.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.03%

26.03%

-5.00%

Dividends

UMI.TO vs. NXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

UMI.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.37%, less than NXF.TO's 8.91% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NXF.TO
CI Energy Giants Covered Call ETF Common Units (CAD Hedged)		8.91%7.70%8.50%8.60%11.22%9.46%11.24%7.83%9.39%6.49%8.24%8.21%
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

UMI.TO and NXF.TO 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.

UMI.TO is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while NXF.TO is Energy Equities.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UMI.TO and NXF.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