VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion ETF) and CRED.TO (CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - VALT.TO is a Gold fund tracking the No Index (Physical Commodity), while CRED.TO is a Investment Grade Bonds fund actively managed by CI Global Asset Management. VALT.TO is passively managed, while CRED.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, VALT.TO returned 16.17%/yr vs 2.92%/yr for CRED.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. VALT.TO charges 0.17%/yr vs 1.94%/yr for CRED.TO.

Performance

VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) and CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.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 -6.93% return, which is significantly lower than CRED.TO's 1.05% return.

VALT.TO

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 1.59%
• 6M: -19.64%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 1Y: 17.76%
• 3Y*: 25.22%
• 5Y*: 16.17%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.95%

CRED.TO

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -0.25%
• 6M: 0.90%
• YTD: 1.05%
• 1Y: 3.16%
• 3Y*: 5.44%
• 5Y*: 2.92%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.25%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	CA$47.86K	CA$36.58K	CA$31.94K
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	CA$185.75K	CA$223.40K	CA$363.49K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	-6.93%	60.46%	25.58%	12.35%	0.92%	-3.19%
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	1.05%	2.77%	9.26%	6.00%	-3.41%	1.03%

Correlation

The correlation between VALT.TO and CRED.TO is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2021	0.08

Return for Risk

VALT.TO vs. CRED.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: 25
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 22

CRED.TO

CRED.TO Risk / Return Rank: 71
CRED.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
CRED.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
CRED.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CRED.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
CRED.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. CRED.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) and CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.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.

	VALT.TO	CRED.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	1.71	-1.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.97	2.51	-1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.36	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	2.09	-1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.48	7.08	-5.60

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

The current VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.63, which is lower than the CRED.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VALT.TO and CRED.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.

Drawdowns

VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VALT.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.07%, which is greater than CRED.TO's maximum drawdown of -10.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VALT.TO and CRED.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	VALT.TO	CRED.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.07%	-10.05%	-17.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.07%	-1.52%	-25.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.07%	-2.82%	-24.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.07%	-6.00%	-21.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.75%	-0.30%	-25.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.25%	-1.45%	-4.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.03%	0.45%	+11.58%

Volatility

VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.20% compared to CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund (CRED.TO) at 0.52%. This indicates that VALT.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CRED.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VALT.TO	CRED.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	0.52%	+5.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.23%	1.46%	+22.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.23%	1.86%	+26.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.62%	2.69%	+15.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.21%	3.44%	+14.77%

VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

VALT.TO has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than CRED.TO's 1.94% expense ratio.

Dividends

VALT.TO vs. CRED.TO - Dividend Comparison

VALT.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CRED.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CRED.TO CI Alternative Investment Grade Credit Fund	2.97%	2.96%	2.95%	3.13%	3.21%	3.01%	2.79%
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

VALT.TO and CRED.TO have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, VALT.TO or CRED.TO?

On fees, VALT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, VALT.TO or CRED.TO?

VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.94% for CRED.TO.

What is the main difference between VALT.TO and CRED.TO?

VALT.TO is categorized as Gold, while CRED.TO is Investment Grade Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for VALT.TO and 1.94% for CRED.TO.