CGL-C.TO vs. IAU
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and IAU (iShares Gold Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.90%/yr vs 14.32%/yr for IAU. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IAU.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CGL-C.TO is traded in CAD, while IAU is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IAU 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 IAU's 5.26% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CGL-C.TO having a 13.90% annualized return and IAU not far ahead at 14.32%.
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%
IAU
- 1D
- 0.93%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- 5.26%
- 6M
- 5.94%
- 1Y
- 34.72%
- 3Y*
- 32.88%
- 5Y*
- 21.93%
- 10Y*
- 14.32%
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 4.95% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 11.98% | 6.86% | 4.31% |
IAU iShares Gold Trust | 5.26% | 56.43% | 37.75% | 10.35% | 6.45% | -4.87% | 22.92% | 12.18% | 6.57% | 5.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and IAU is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2011 | 0.87 |
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and IAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. IAU — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
IAU
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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 | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.04 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.28 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.95 | 2.03 | -0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.76 | 4.93 | -0.18 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGL-C.TO | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.34 | 1.39 | -0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.27 | 1.31 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 | 0.94 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.66 | -0.06 |
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, roughly equal to the maximum IAU drawdown of -33.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and IAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.04% | -33.38% | +0.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.37% | -17.22% | -0.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.37% | -17.22% | -0.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.55% | -17.36% | -0.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.78% | -22.84% | +0.06% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.88% | -14.58% | -0.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.24% | -11.38% | -0.86% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.12% | 7.06% | +0.06% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU) have volatilities of 5.29% and 5.19%, 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL-C.TO | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.29% | 5.19% | +0.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.55% | 21.64% | -0.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.34% | 25.16% | +0.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.97% | 16.78% | +0.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.56% | 15.31% | +0.25% |
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than IAU's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. IAU - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL-C.TO nor IAU has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, CGL-C.TO and IAU move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while IAU is Gold. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.25% for IAU.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and IAU
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