PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

AEM.TO (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited) is a stock, while CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) is Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Over the past 10 years, AEM.TO returned 15.41%/yr vs 10.99%/yr for CGL.TO. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AEM.TO achieves a -1.88% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's -3.19% return. Over the past 10 years, AEM.TO has outperformed CGL.TO with an annualized return of 15.41%, while CGL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.99% annualized return.

AEM.TO

1D
3.40%
1M
-8.01%
YTD
-1.88%
6M
-1.40%
1Y
35.72%
3Y*
53.43%
5Y*
24.09%
10Y*
15.41%

CGL.TO

1D
0.25%
1M
-9.62%
YTD
-3.19%
6M
-3.25%
1Y
19.93%
3Y*
27.16%
5Y*
15.73%
10Y*
10.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AEM.TO
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited		-1.88%109.63%58.54%6.65%8.01%-23.56%13.64%46.58%-4.22%3.57%
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		-3.19%60.08%25.70%11.26%-1.07%-4.58%23.41%16.58%-3.19%11.68%

Correlation

The correlation between AEM.TO and CGL.TO is 0.73, 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

0.73

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

0.71

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

0.70

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2010

0.66

The correlation between AEM.TO and CGL.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with AEM.TO:
AEM.TO vs. ABX.TOAEM.TO vs. AGIAEM.TO vs. GOLD.TOAEM.TO vs. XAUUSD=XAEM.TO vs. HBMAEM.TO vs. BTO.TOAEM.TO vs. WDO.TO
Often compared with CGL.TO:
CGL.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGL.TO vs. XGD.TOCGL.TO vs. KILO.TOCGL.TO vs. MNT.TOCGL.TO vs. GLDMCGL.TO vs. VOOCGL.TO vs. SVR.TO

Return for Risk

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
AEM.TO
AEM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
AEM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AEM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
AEM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
AEM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
AEM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
CGL.TO
CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
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.

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM.TO) 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.

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.

AEM.TOCGL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.88
0.78

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.33
1.15

+0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.16

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.00

0.87

+0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.79

2.49

+0.30

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AEM.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is comparable to the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AEM.TO and CGL.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...

Drawdowns

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AEM.TO drawdown since its inception was -70.33%, which is greater than CGL.TO's maximum drawdown of -45.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AEM.TO and CGL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

AEM.TOCGL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-70.33%

-45.96%

-24.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-38.24%

-24.93%

-13.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-38.24%

-24.93%

-13.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.24%

-24.93%

-15.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-55.07%

-24.93%

-30.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-33.88%

-22.50%

-11.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-29.18%

-20.30%

-8.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.73%

8.66%

+5.07%

Volatility

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (AEM.TO) has a higher volatility of 15.84% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 7.67%. This indicates that AEM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

AEM.TOCGL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

15.84%

7.67%

+8.17%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.38%

24.08%

+11.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.51%

27.61%

+15.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.15%

18.54%

+16.61%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.00%

16.53%

+19.47%

Dividends

AEM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

AEM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AEM.TO
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited		1.03%0.97%1.95%2.98%2.81%2.08%1.34%0.81%0.80%0.77%0.75%0.95%
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

AEM.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AEM.TO and CGL.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