PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.TO) and CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XEQT.TO achieves a 13.22% return, which is significantly lower than CMGG.TO's 20.49% return.


XEQT.TO

1D
0.83%
1M
6.02%
YTD
13.22%
6M
11.68%
1Y
30.42%
3Y*
22.22%
5Y*
13.90%
10Y*

CMGG.TO

1D
-0.62%
1M
7.39%
YTD
20.49%
6M
20.10%
1Y
37.47%
3Y*
34.84%
5Y*
20.41%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XEQT.TO
iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio
13.22%19.47%24.36%17.25%-11.01%15.75%
CMGG.TO
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund
20.49%21.00%52.95%24.21%-21.16%11.08%

Correlation

The correlation between XEQT.TO and CMGG.TO is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.62

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

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021

0.50

Over the past year, XEQT.TO and CMGG.TO have become more correlated (0.75) than their long-term average of 0.50, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

XEQT.TO
XEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
XEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank

CMGG.TO
CMGG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
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.

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.TO) and CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.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.


XEQT.TOCMGG.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.35

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.39

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.70

3.71

-0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.13

10.38

+5.75

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is comparable to the CMGG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XEQT.TO and CMGG.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XEQT.TOCMGG.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.62

2.28

+0.35

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.07

1.13

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.96

0.97

-0.01

Drawdowns

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XEQT.TO drawdown since its inception was -29.74%, roughly equal to the maximum CMGG.TO drawdown of -29.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEQT.TO and CMGG.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XEQT.TOCMGG.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.74%

-29.00%

-0.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.25%

-10.15%

+1.90%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.08%

-22.85%

+7.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.56%

-29.00%

+9.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.62%

+0.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.11%

-8.90%

+4.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.89%

3.62%

-1.73%

Volatility

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.TO) is 3.70%, while CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a volatility of 6.37%. This indicates that XEQT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMGG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XEQT.TOCMGG.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.70%

6.37%

-2.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.41%

12.96%

-3.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.65%

16.54%

-4.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.13%

18.22%

-5.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

18.48%

-2.92%

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XEQT.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CMGG.TO's 0.90% expense ratio.


Dividends

XEQT.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Dividend Comparison

XEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, while CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
CMGG.TO
CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XEQT.TO
iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio
1.47%1.66%2.01%2.07%2.12%1.64%1.66%1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions


XEQT.TO and CMGG.TO have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and CI Global Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XEQT.TO and 0.90% for CMGG.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XEQT.TO and CMGG.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