CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and QDAY.NEO (Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while QDAY.NEO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Hamilton Capital. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while QDAY.NEO is actively managed. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for QDAY.NEO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF (QDAY.NEO). 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 1.94% return, which is significantly lower than QDAY.NEO's 30.27% return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 2.56%
• 1M: -3.33%
• YTD: 1.94%
• 6M: 1.69%
• 1Y: 28.64%
• 3Y*: 31.98%
• 5Y*: 21.21%
• 10Y*: 13.01%

QDAY.NEO

• 1D: 3.63%
• 1M: 7.22%
• YTD: 30.27%
• 6M: 31.66%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	1.94%	28.22%
QDAY.NEO Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF	30.27%	14.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and QDAY.NEO is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2025	0.20

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO — 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: 32
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

QDAY.NEO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. QDAY.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF (QDAY.NEO). 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	QDAY.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.69	—	—

Drawdowns

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, which is greater than QDAY.NEO's maximum drawdown of -19.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and QDAY.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	QDAY.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.01%	-19.44%	-10.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.11%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.11%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.11%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.33%	-0.97%	-16.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.72%	-5.23%	-5.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.79%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	QDAY.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.08%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.58%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.24%	24.37%	+1.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.24%	24.37%	-7.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.67%	24.37%	-8.70%

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than QDAY.NEO's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL-C.TO vs. QDAY.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QDAY.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.91%.

Position	TTM	2025
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%
QDAY.NEO Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF	14.91%	8.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGL-C.TO and QDAY.NEO in my portfolio?

CGL-C.TO and QDAY.NEO have a correlation of 0.20, 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 QDAY.NEO?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGL-C.TO or QDAY.NEO?

CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for QDAY.NEO.

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

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Gold, while QDAY.NEO is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Hamilton Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.85% for QDAY.NEO.