VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

VVL.TO (Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF) and CLML.TO (CI Global Climate Leaders Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - VVL.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Vanguard, while CLML.TO is a Alternative Energy Equities fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, VVL.TO returned 15.45%/yr vs 20.37%/yr for CLML.TO. Their 0.26 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. VVL.TO charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for CLML.TO.

Performance

VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF (VVL.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, VVL.TO achieves a 19.93% return, which is significantly lower than CLML.TO's 24.04% return.

VVL.TO

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 2.41%
• 6M: 13.59%
• YTD: 19.93%
• 1Y: 36.20%
• 3Y*: 19.80%
• 5Y*: 15.45%
• 10Y*: 12.44%
• ALL TIME*: 12.64%

CLML.TO

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: -8.07%
• 6M: 16.20%
• YTD: 24.04%
• 1Y: 32.66%
• 3Y*: 36.77%
• 5Y*: 20.37%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.28%

*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)
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	CA$201.62K	CA$413.31K	CA$399.13K
VVL.TO Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF	CA$1.10M	CA$1.04M	CA$875.29K

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
VVL.TO Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF	19.93%	18.01%	15.01%	16.57%	0.50%	6.15%
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	24.04%	25.21%	63.19%	12.83%	-18.69%	9.27%

Correlation

The correlation between VVL.TO and CLML.TO is 0.31, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.26

Return for Risk

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

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

VVL.TO

VVL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 91
VVL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
VVL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
VVL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 91
VVL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
VVL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 91

CLML.TO

CLML.TO Risk / Return Rank: 53
CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CLML.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
CLML.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 49
CLML.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CLML.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 63

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF (VVL.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.

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.

	VVL.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	1.30	+1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.55	1.88	+1.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.23	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.88	1.97	+1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.44	7.95	+7.48

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

The current VVL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is higher than the CLML.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VVL.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.

Drawdowns

VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VVL.TO drawdown since its inception was -43.88%, which is greater than CLML.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VVL.TO and CLML.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	VVL.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.88%	-28.17%	-15.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.83%	-15.61%	+6.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.07%	-25.94%	+7.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.07%	-28.17%	+10.10%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.33%	-11.92%	+10.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.71%	-8.87%	+3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	3.86%	-1.64%

Volatility

VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF (VVL.TO) is 3.73%, while CI Global Climate Leaders Fund (CLML.TO) has a volatility of 7.85%. This indicates that VVL.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

	VVL.TO	CLML.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.73%	7.85%	-4.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.47%	19.77%	-10.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.85%	23.72%	-9.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.10%	21.27%	-5.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.78%	21.17%	-2.39%

VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

VVL.TO has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than CLML.TO's 0.99% expense ratio.

Dividends

VVL.TO vs. CLML.TO - Dividend Comparison

VVL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, while CLML.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CLML.TO CI Global Climate Leaders Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VVL.TO Vanguard Global Value Factor ETF	1.58%	1.89%	2.19%	2.69%	2.57%	1.50%	1.70%	2.65%	2.15%	1.35%	0.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

VVL.TO and CLML.TO have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, VVL.TO or CLML.TO?

On fees, VVL.TO is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, VVL.TO or CLML.TO?

VVL.TO is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CLML.TO.

What is the main difference between VVL.TO and CLML.TO?

VVL.TO is categorized as Global Equities, while CLML.TO is Alternative Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for VVL.TO and 0.99% for CLML.TO.