CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL-C.TO returned 20.15%/yr vs 11.19%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CGL-C.TO is traded in CAD, while DBMF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the DBMF 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 -0.61% return, which is significantly lower than DBMF's 12.62% return.
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 0.29%
- 1M
- -7.80%
- YTD
- -0.61%
- 6M
- -0.87%
- 1Y
- 25.43%
- 3Y*
- 30.79%
- 5Y*
- 20.15%
- 10Y*
- 12.86%
DBMF
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- 1.13%
- YTD
- 12.62%
- 6M
- 12.95%
- 1Y
- 30.33%
- 3Y*
- 11.32%
- 5Y*
- 11.19%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -0.61% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 13.17% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 12.50% | 8.65% | 16.32% | -11.10% | 29.31% | 11.44% | -0.61% | 7.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and DBMF is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019 | 0.10 |
Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and DBMF have become more correlated (0.33) than their long-term average of 0.10, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
DBMF
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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.
| CGL-C.TO | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.63 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.44 | -0.23 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.22 | 5.19 | -3.97 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.49 | 19.01 | -15.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -21.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and DBMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.01% | -21.87% | -8.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -22.11% | -5.87% | -16.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.11% | -13.28% | -8.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.11% | -21.87% | -0.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.78% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.39% | -0.90% | -18.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.71% | -7.44% | -3.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.71% | 1.60% | +6.11% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.53% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.96%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL-C.TO | DBMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.53% | 2.96% | +4.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.46% | 10.89% | +11.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.11% | 13.21% | +12.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.20% | 14.04% | +3.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.65% | 14.05% | +1.60% |
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison
CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF | 5.19% | 5.91% | 5.75% | 2.91% | 7.72% | 10.38% | 0.86% | 9.35% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL-C.TO and DBMF have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.
CGL-C.TO is categorized as Gold, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: iShares and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.85% for DBMF.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and DBMF
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