AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO).
AMAX and CGL-C.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. AMAX is an actively managed fund by Adaptive. It was launched on Oct 2, 2009. CGL-C.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Mar 31, 2011.
Performance
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMAX RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF | 0.18% | 11.38% | 9.62% | 6.70% | -12.56% | -0.20% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 8.60% | 63.00% | 26.55% | 12.64% | -0.99% | -2.11% |
Different Trading Currencies
AMAX is traded in USD, while CGL-C.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CGL-C.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AMAX achieves a 0.18% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 8.60% return.
AMAX
- 1D
- 1.59%
- 1M
- -4.93%
- YTD
- 0.18%
- 6M
- -1.00%
- 1Y
- 14.81%
- 3Y*
- 8.20%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 3.73%
- 1M
- -10.97%
- YTD
- 8.60%
- 6M
- 20.84%
- 1Y
- 48.78%
- 3Y*
- 32.60%
- 5Y*
- 21.37%
- 10Y*
- 13.66%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
AMAX has a 1.29% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
AMAX
CGL-C.TO
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.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.
| AMAX | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.32 | 1.76 | -0.45 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.81 | 2.21 | -0.40 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.32 | -0.08 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.98 | 2.65 | -0.67 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.32 | 9.74 | -3.42 |
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
| AMAX | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.32 | 1.76 | -0.45 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 1.20 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.29 | 0.44 | -0.15 |
Correlation
The correlation between AMAX and CGL-C.TO is 0.40, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
AMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.57%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMAX RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF | 10.57% | 9.18% | 7.36% | 6.99% | 11.22% | 1.00% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AMAX drawdown since its inception was -16.28%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -45.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AMAX and CGL-C.TO.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| AMAX | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.28% | -33.04% | +16.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.53% | -17.37% | +9.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.55% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.06% | -10.79% | +4.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.44% | -12.23% | +6.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.36% | 5.03% | -2.67% |
Volatility
AMAX vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX) is 4.15%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a volatility of 11.17%. This indicates that AMAX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGL-C.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| AMAX | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.15% | 11.17% | -7.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.14% | 24.23% | -16.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.29% | 27.83% | -16.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.38% | 17.92% | -7.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.38% | 16.18% | -5.80% |