BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO
BAM.TO (Brookfield Asset Management Ltd) is a stock, while CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) is Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Over the past 3 years, BAM.TO returned 18.57%/yr vs 27.16%/yr for CGL.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAM.TO achieves a -6.38% return, which is significantly lower than CGL.TO's -3.19% return.
BAM.TO
- 1D
- 1.48%
- 1M
- -1.81%
- YTD
- -6.38%
- 6M
- -9.11%
- 1Y
- -7.86%
- 3Y*
- 18.57%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
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%
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | -6.38% | -4.85% | 51.69% | 42.64% | 33.69% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | -3.19% | 60.08% | 25.70% | 11.26% | 3.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAM.TO and CGL.TO is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022 | 0.08 |
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
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
BAM.TO
CGL.TO
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.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.
| BAM.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.96 | 1.16 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.35 | 0.87 | -1.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.64 | 2.49 | -3.14 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAM.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.80%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -45.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAM.TO and CGL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAM.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.80% | -45.96% | +15.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.31% | -24.93% | -5.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -30.80% | -24.93% | -5.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -24.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.93% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.54% | -22.50% | +0.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.24% | -20.30% | +11.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.31% | 8.66% | +7.65% |
Volatility
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.TO) has a higher volatility of 9.78% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 7.67%. This indicates that BAM.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
| BAM.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.78% | 7.67% | +2.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.05% | 24.08% | -2.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.95% | 27.61% | +1.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.28% | 18.54% | +22.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.28% | 16.53% | +24.75% |
Dividends
BAM.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison
BAM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.93%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | 3.93% | 3.40% | 2.67% | 3.27% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BAM.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for BAM.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