AAAU vs. CGL.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO).
AAAU and CGL.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. AAAU is a passively managed fund by Goldman Sachs that tracks the performance of the LBMA Gold PM Price. It was launched on Jul 26, 2018. CGL.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold Bullion. It was launched on May 28, 2009. Both AAAU and CGL.TO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 10.48% | 64.06% | 26.91% | 12.96% | -0.50% | -4.01% | 25.02% | 18.17% | 9.20% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 8.66% | 67.79% | 15.74% | 13.79% | -7.69% | -3.88% | 25.88% | 22.40% | 4.97% |
Different Trading Currencies
AAAU is traded in USD, while CGL.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CGL.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AAAU achieves a 10.48% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's 6.75% return.
AAAU
- 1D
- 1.78%
- 1M
- -10.64%
- YTD
- 10.48%
- 6M
- 23.10%
- 1Y
- 52.53%
- 3Y*
- 33.97%
- 5Y*
- 22.27%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -13.80%
- YTD
- 6.75%
- 6M
- 20.00%
- 1Y
- 50.43%
- 3Y*
- 29.86%
- 5Y*
- 17.83%
- 10Y*
- 12.02%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
AAAU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
AAAU vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
AAAU
CGL.TO
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.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.
| AAAU | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.92 | 1.68 | +0.24 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.35 | 2.13 | +0.22 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.30 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.73 | 2.36 | +0.37 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.02 | 8.59 | +1.43 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AAAU | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.92 | 1.68 | +0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.27 | 0.86 | +0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.63 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.18 | 0.35 | +0.83 |
Correlation
The correlation between AAAU and CGL.TO is 0.89, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither AAAU nor CGL.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AAAU drawdown since its inception was -21.63%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -60.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAAU and CGL.TO.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| AAAU | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.63% | -44.53% | +22.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.13% | -19.36% | +0.23% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.94% | -22.18% | +1.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -23.72% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.65% | -11.98% | +0.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.01% | -18.20% | +12.19% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.21% | 5.34% | -0.13% |
Volatility
AAAU vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) have volatilities of 10.43% and 10.82%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| AAAU | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.43% | 10.82% | -0.39% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.06% | 25.47% | -1.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.50% | 30.25% | -2.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.58% | 20.97% | -3.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.92% | 19.30% | -2.38% |