CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) and Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO).
Performance
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGG.TO China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. | 5.58% | 275.00% | 33.51% | 52.96% | 22.48% | 94.07% | 54.24% | -25.32% | -32.77% | 18.69% |
LUG.TO Lundin Gold Inc. | -0.98% | 291.32% | 91.60% | 29.57% | 30.62% | -4.67% | 31.21% | 66.93% | 10.15% | -13.88% |
Fundamentals
CGG.TO:
CA$11.56B
LUG.TO:
CA$27.05B
CGG.TO:
CA$1.03
LUG.TO:
CA$3.28
CGG.TO:
28.28
LUG.TO:
33.97
CGG.TO:
0.89
LUG.TO:
0.45
CGG.TO:
9.48
LUG.TO:
15.09
CGG.TO:
5.30
LUG.TO:
19.86
CGG.TO:
CA$1.22B
LUG.TO:
CA$1.79B
CGG.TO:
CA$590.11M
LUG.TO:
CA$1.26B
CGG.TO:
CA$761.35M
LUG.TO:
CA$1.25B
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGG.TO achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly higher than LUG.TO's -0.98% return. Over the past 10 years, CGG.TO has underperformed LUG.TO with an annualized return of 31.99%, while LUG.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 39.62% annualized return.
CGG.TO
- 1D
- 4.03%
- 1M
- -19.63%
- YTD
- 5.58%
- 6M
- 14.76%
- 1Y
- 201.28%
- 3Y*
- 86.16%
- 5Y*
- 57.23%
- 10Y*
- 31.99%
LUG.TO
- 1D
- 1.28%
- 1M
- -2.66%
- YTD
- -0.98%
- 6M
- 24.92%
- 1Y
- 166.33%
- 3Y*
- 97.38%
- 5Y*
- 65.86%
- 10Y*
- 39.62%
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
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGG.TO
LUG.TO
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) and Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.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.
| CGG.TO | LUG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 3.34 | 2.83 | +0.51 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.24 | 2.82 | +0.41 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.40 | +0.04 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.43 | 6.47 | -2.05 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.56 | 18.51 | -3.95 |
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
| CGG.TO | LUG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.34 | 2.83 | +0.51 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | 1.45 | -0.31 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 | 0.91 | -0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.24 | 0.00 | +0.24 |
Correlation
The correlation between CGG.TO and LUG.TO is 0.13, 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
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than LUG.TO's 4.48% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGG.TO China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. | 0.38% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 8.87% | 8.06% | 4.42% |
LUG.TO Lundin Gold Inc. | 4.48% | 3.37% | 2.69% | 3.28% | 1.97% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -92.81%, roughly equal to the maximum LUG.TO drawdown of -95.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGG.TO and LUG.TO.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGG.TO | LUG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -92.81% | -95.45% | +2.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -44.05% | -25.33% | -18.72% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.99% | -38.94% | -9.05% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -87.47% | -41.84% | -45.63% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -32.33% | -12.19% | -20.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -51.53% | -65.22% | +13.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.39% | 8.86% | +4.53% |
Volatility
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Volatility Comparison
China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. (CGG.TO) and Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) have volatilities of 18.94% and 18.68%, 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
| CGG.TO | LUG.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 18.94% | 18.68% | +0.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 44.53% | 43.71% | +0.82% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 60.65% | 59.10% | +1.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 50.53% | 45.54% | +4.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 57.83% | 43.61% | +14.22% |
Financials
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. and Lundin Gold Inc.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
CGG.TO vs. LUG.TO - Profitability Comparison
CGG.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported a gross profit of 195.41M and revenue of 345.03M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 56.6%.
LUG.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported a gross profit of 359.14M and revenue of 534.69M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 67.2%.
CGG.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported an operating income of 174.78M and revenue of 345.03M, resulting in an operating margin of 50.7%.
LUG.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported an operating income of 334.43M and revenue of 534.69M, resulting in an operating margin of 62.6%.
CGG.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd. reported a net income of 141.14M and revenue of 345.03M, resulting in a net margin of 40.9%.
LUG.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported a net income of 237.81M and revenue of 534.69M, resulting in a net margin of 44.5%.