CGL-C.TO vs. PHYS.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.TO).

CGL-C.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Mar 31, 2011.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. PHYS.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 Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	10.00%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-4.85%	21.75%	11.98%	4.16%
PHYS.TO Sprott Physical Gold Trust	9.00%	56.35%	37.41%	10.65%	4.96%	-5.37%	21.38%	12.13%	4.21%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 10.00% return, which is significantly higher than PHYS.TO's 9.00% return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 3.62%
• 1M: -9.28%
• YTD: 10.00%
• 6M: 20.69%
• 1Y: 43.80%
• 3Y*: 33.85%
• 5Y*: 23.89%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

PHYS.TO

• 1D: 3.83%
• 1M: -9.76%
• YTD: 9.00%
• 6M: 19.82%
• 1Y: 42.70%
• 3Y*: 33.20%
• 5Y*: 23.79%
• 10Y*: —

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

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. PHYS.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: 85
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 85

PHYS.TO

PHYS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 84
PHYS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
PHYS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
PHYS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 83
PHYS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
PHYS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. PHYS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.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	PHYS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	1.60	+0.09
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	2.00	+0.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.30	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	2.47	+0.23
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.29	8.74	+0.55
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. PHYS.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is comparable to the PHYS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and PHYS.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL-C.TO	PHYS.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.68	1.60	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.44	1.42	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.63	0.64	-0.01

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and PHYS.TO is 0.89, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

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

Neither CGL-C.TO nor PHYS.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than PHYS.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and PHYS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	PHYS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.04%	-27.08%	-5.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.37%	-18.14%	+0.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.55%	-18.14%	+0.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.79%	-11.31%	+0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.23%	-7.72%	-4.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.03%	5.12%	-0.09%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.TO) have volatilities of 10.97% and 10.99%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	PHYS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.97%	10.99%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.21%	23.94%	-0.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.21%	26.89%	-0.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.73%	16.92%	-0.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.49%	26.95%	-11.46%