CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and HXQ.TO (Horizons NASDAQ-100 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while HXQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 11.94%/yr vs 21.13%/yr for HXQ.TO. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for HXQ.TO.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a -3.54% return, which is significantly lower than HXQ.TO's 14.44% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has underperformed HXQ.TO with an annualized return of 11.94%, while HXQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 21.13% annualized return.
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.74%
- 6M
- -16.38%
- YTD
- -3.54%
- 1Y
- 23.59%
- 3Y*
- 29.48%
- 5Y*
- 19.65%
- 10Y*
- 11.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.16%
HXQ.TO
- 1D
- -1.10%
- 1M
- -4.72%
- 6M
- 13.14%
- YTD
- 14.44%
- 1Y
- 25.29%
- 3Y*
- 24.97%
- 5Y*
- 16.27%
- 10Y*
- 21.13%
- ALL TIME*
- 21.14%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | CA$708.29K | CA$726.97K | CA$936.83K |
| CA$2.67M | CA$3.05M | CA$3.88M |
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -3.54% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 11.98% | 6.86% | 4.31% |
HXQ.TO Horizons NASDAQ-100 Index ETF | 14.44% | 15.05% | 35.98% | 51.16% | -27.84% | 26.20% | 45.58% | 32.26% | 6.71% | 23.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and HXQ.TO is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2016 | -0.03 |
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and HXQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (5 years) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. HXQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
HXQ.TO
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Horizons NASDAQ-100 Index ETF (HXQ.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.
| CGL-C.TO | HXQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.63 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.25 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.01 | 2.04 | -1.04 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.27 | 6.16 | -3.89 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, smaller than the maximum HXQ.TO drawdown of -31.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and HXQ.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | HXQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.01% | -31.60% | +1.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.55% | -12.43% | -11.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.55% | -22.58% | -0.97% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.55% | -31.60% | +8.05% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.55% | -31.60% | +8.05% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.77% | -7.90% | -13.87% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.79% | -5.71% | -5.08% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.40% | 4.12% | +6.28% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) is 6.62%, while Horizons NASDAQ-100 Index ETF (HXQ.TO) has a volatility of 7.11%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HXQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL-C.TO | HXQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.62% | 7.11% | -0.49% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.80% | 15.20% | +7.60% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.96% | 18.58% | +8.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.47% | 21.22% | -3.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.64% | 21.04% | -5.40% |
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than HXQ.TO's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. HXQ.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL-C.TO nor HXQ.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL-C.TO and HXQ.TO have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, HXQ.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HXQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
CGL-C.TO is categorized as Gold, while HXQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while HXQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Horizons. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.25% for HXQ.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and HXQ.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