XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO
XML.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and CMGG.TO (CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund) are both Global Equities funds. XML.TO is passively managed, while CMGG.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XML.TO returned 9.34%/yr vs 20.56%/yr for CMGG.TO. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XML.TO charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for CMGG.TO.
Performance
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XML.TO achieves a 3.89% return, which is significantly lower than CMGG.TO's 21.24% return.
XML.TO
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -0.91%
- YTD
- 3.89%
- 6M
- 5.30%
- 1Y
- 9.71%
- 3Y*
- 13.01%
- 5Y*
- 9.34%
- 10Y*
- 7.35%
CMGG.TO
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 10.96%
- YTD
- 21.24%
- 6M
- 21.36%
- 1Y
- 38.88%
- 3Y*
- 35.34%
- 5Y*
- 20.56%
- 10Y*
- —
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XML.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 3.89% | 17.56% | 14.13% | 11.69% | -6.94% | 12.86% |
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 21.24% | 21.00% | 52.95% | 24.21% | -21.16% | 11.08% |
Correlation
The correlation between XML.TO and CMGG.TO is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021 | 0.26 |
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
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XML.TO
CMGG.TO
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.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.
| XML.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.51 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.40 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.00 | 3.85 | -1.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.42 | 10.77 | -5.36 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XML.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.15 | 2.36 | -1.22 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.97 | 1.14 | -0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.62 | 0.98 | -0.36 |
Drawdowns
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XML.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.62%, roughly equal to the maximum CMGG.TO drawdown of -29.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XML.TO and CMGG.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XML.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.62% | -29.00% | +0.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.88% | -10.15% | +5.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.46% | -22.85% | +15.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -12.34% | -29.00% | +16.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.62% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.26% | 0.00% | -4.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.41% | -8.91% | +5.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.80% | 3.62% | -1.82% |
Volatility
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XML.TO) is 2.60%, while CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund (CMGG.TO) has a volatility of 6.68%. This indicates that XML.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
| XML.TO | CMGG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.60% | 6.68% | -4.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.48% | 12.94% | -6.46% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 8.50% | 16.53% | -8.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 9.70% | 18.22% | -8.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.09% | 18.49% | -6.40% |
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XML.TO has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CMGG.TO's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
XML.TO vs. CMGG.TO - Dividend Comparison
XML.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.66%, while CMGG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMGG.TO CI Munro Global Growth Equity Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XML.TO iShares MSCI Min Vol EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.66% | 2.76% | 2.67% | 2.56% | 2.02% | 1.92% | 1.11% | 3.62% | 2.77% | 1.92% | 3.34% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XML.TO and CMGG.TO have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XML.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XML.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% 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: 0.40% for XML.TO and 0.90% for CMGG.TO.
Find the right allocation for XML.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