VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion Fund) and CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - VALT.TO is a fund fund, while CLML.TO is a fund fund. Over the past 3 years, VALT.TO returned 28.96%/yr vs 44.11%/yr for CLML.TO. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VALT.TO achieves a 2.61% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 36.54% return.

VALT.TO

• 1D: -0.91%
• 1M: -1.77%
• YTD: 2.61%
• 6M: 4.70%
• 1Y: 30.16%
• 3Y*: 28.96%
• 5Y*: 17.30%
• 10Y*: —

CLML.TO

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 6.60%
• YTD: 36.54%
• 6M: 35.01%
• 1Y: 58.40%
• 3Y*: 44.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion Fund	2.61%	60.46%	25.58%	12.35%	0.92%	-0.91%
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	36.54%	25.21%	63.19%	12.83%	-18.69%	9.27%

Correlation

The correlation between VALT.TO and CLML.TO is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021	0.11

Return for Risk

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

VALT.TO

VALT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 30
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

CLML.TO

CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 88
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) and CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.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.

	VALT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	2.88	-1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.53	3.93	-2.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.49	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	8.04	-6.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	24.25	-20.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VALT.TO and CLML.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	VALT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	2.88	-1.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	1.14	-0.22

Drawdowns

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VALT.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.96%, smaller than the maximum CLML.TO drawdown of -28.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VALT.TO and CLML.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	VALT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.96%	-28.17%	+7.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.47%	-7.30%	-12.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.47%	-25.94%	+6.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.14%	0.00%	-18.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.78%	-8.96%	+3.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.91%	2.42%	+5.49%

Volatility

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) is 5.90%, while CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a volatility of 8.88%. This indicates that VALT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLML.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VALT.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.90%	8.88%	-2.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.20%	16.50%	+6.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.84%	20.38%	+6.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.17%	20.68%	-2.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.91%	20.68%	-2.77%

Dividends

VALT.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither VALT.TO nor CLML.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VALT.TO and CLML.TO in my portfolio?

VALT.TO and CLML.TO have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.