CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and CASH.TO (Global X High Interest Savings ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while CASH.TO is a Money Market fund actively managed by Global X. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while CASH.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGL-C.TO returned 32.37%/yr vs 3.62%/yr for CASH.TO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for CASH.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly higher than CASH.TO's 0.83% return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 0.43%
• YTD: 4.39%
• 6M: 5.02%
• 1Y: 33.57%
• 3Y*: 32.37%
• 5Y*: 21.30%
• 10Y*: 13.74%

CASH.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.15%
• YTD: 0.83%
• 6M: 1.01%
• 1Y: 2.22%
• 3Y*: 3.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	4.39%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	4.98%
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF	0.83%	2.45%	4.53%	5.11%	2.39%	0.08%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and CASH.TO is -0.04, 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	-0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2021	-0.01

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO — 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: 35
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 40
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 31

CASH.TO

CASH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 100
CASH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CASH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. CASH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.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.

	CGL-C.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	10.33	-8.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.75	32.48	-30.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	7.47	-6.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.94	111.49	-109.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.77	468.24	-463.47
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. CASH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the CASH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 10.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and CASH.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL-C.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33	10.33	-8.99
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	5.52	-4.92

Drawdowns

CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than CASH.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and CASH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.04%	-0.80%	-32.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.37%	-0.02%	-17.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.37%	-0.06%	-17.31%
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	-15.34%	0.00%	-15.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-0.00%	-12.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.06%	0.00%	+7.06%

Volatility

CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO) at 0.06%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CASH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.33%	0.06%	+5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.56%	0.13%	+21.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.35%	0.22%	+25.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.98%	0.61%	+16.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	0.61%	+14.95%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CASH.TO's 0.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL-C.TO vs. CASH.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CASH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.19%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF	2.19%	2.53%	4.37%	5.06%	2.30%	0.10%
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 CASH.TO in my portfolio?

CGL-C.TO and CASH.TO have a correlation of -0.04, 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 CASH.TO?

On fees, CASH.TO is cheaper at 0.11% 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 CASH.TO?

CASH.TO is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

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

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while CASH.TO is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.11% for CASH.TO.