CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and AMAX (RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while AMAX is a Nontraditional Bonds fund actively managed by Adaptive. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while AMAX is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGL-C.TO returned 32.37%/yr vs 10.37%/yr for AMAX. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 1.29%/yr for AMAX.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CGL-C.TO is traded in CAD, while AMAX is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the AMAX values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 4.95% return, which is significantly lower than AMAX's 6.03% return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: 0.13%
• YTD: 4.95%
• 6M: 5.44%
• 1Y: 33.77%
• 3Y*: 32.37%
• 5Y*: 21.43%
• 10Y*: 13.90%

AMAX

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: 1.50%
• YTD: 6.03%
• 6M: 3.22%
• 1Y: 13.52%
• 3Y*: 10.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	4.95%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-1.10%
AMAX RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF	6.03%	6.28%	19.04%	4.35%	-6.33%	0.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and AMAX is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2021	0.30

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and AMAX shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (all time) to 0.47 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGL-C.TO

CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 37
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

AMAX

AMAX Risk / Return Rank: 32
AMAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
AMAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
AMAX Omega Ratio Rank: 31
AMAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
AMAX Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX). 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.

	CGL-C.TO	AMAX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.45	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	2.08	-0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.26	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	2.00	-0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.76	4.99	-0.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the AMAX Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and AMAX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL-C.TO	AMAX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	1.45	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.27	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.65	-0.05

Drawdowns

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than AMAX's maximum drawdown of -11.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and AMAX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	AMAX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.04%	-11.63%	-21.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.37%	-6.77%	-10.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.37%	-11.63%	-5.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.88%	-0.65%	-14.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-3.64%	-8.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.12%	2.72%	+4.40%

Volatility

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF (AMAX) at 2.29%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AMAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	AMAX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.29%	2.29%	+3.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.55%	7.47%	+14.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.34%	9.34%	+16.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.97%	9.75%	+7.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	9.75%	+5.81%

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than AMAX's 1.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL-C.TO vs. AMAX - Dividend Comparison

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AMAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.98%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AMAX RH Hedged Multi-Asset Income ETF	10.98%	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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGL-C.TO and AMAX in my portfolio?

CGL-C.TO and AMAX have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CGL-C.TO or AMAX?

On fees, CGL-C.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGL-C.TO or AMAX?

CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.29% for AMAX.

What is the main difference between CGL-C.TO and AMAX?

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while AMAX is Nontraditional Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Adaptive. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 1.29% for AMAX.