CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while VALT.TO is a fund fund. Over the past 5 years, CGL-C.TO returned 21.30%/yr vs 17.30%/yr for VALT.TO. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly higher than VALT.TO's 2.61% return.
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 0.43%
- YTD
- 4.39%
- 6M
- 5.02%
- 1Y
- 33.57%
- 3Y*
- 32.37%
- 5Y*
- 21.30%
- 10Y*
- 13.74%
VALT.TO
- 1D
- -0.91%
- 1M
- -1.77%
- YTD
- 2.61%
- 6M
- 4.70%
- 1Y
- 30.16%
- 3Y*
- 28.96%
- 5Y*
- 17.30%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 4.39% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -2.41% |
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion Fund | 2.61% | 60.46% | 25.58% | 12.35% | 0.92% | -3.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and VALT.TO is 0.95 - 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 | 0.95 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2021 | 0.71 |
Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and VALT.TO have become more correlated (0.95) than their long-term average of 0.71, 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. VALT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
VALT.TO
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.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 | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.23 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.22 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.94 | 1.56 | +0.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.77 | 3.82 | +0.95 |
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 | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.33 | 1.13 | +0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.26 | 0.96 | +0.31 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.89 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.92 | -0.32 |
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than VALT.TO's maximum drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and VALT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.04% | -20.96% | -12.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.37% | -19.47% | +2.10% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.37% | -19.47% | +2.10% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.55% | -20.96% | +3.41% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.78% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.34% | -18.14% | +2.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.24% | -5.78% | -6.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.06% | 7.91% | -0.85% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) is 5.33%, while CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) has a volatility of 5.90%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VALT.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 | VALT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.33% | 5.90% | -0.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.56% | 23.20% | -1.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.35% | 26.84% | -1.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.98% | 18.17% | -1.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.56% | 17.91% | -2.35% |
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. VALT.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL-C.TO nor VALT.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, CGL-C.TO and VALT.TO 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.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and VALT.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