CGL-C.TO vs. VFV.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and VFV.TO (Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while VFV.TO is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for VFV.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. VFV.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 Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF (VFV.TO). 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 4.95% return, which is significantly lower than VFV.TO's 10.06% return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: -2.88%
• YTD: 4.95%
• 6M: 6.74%
• 1Y: 34.64%
• 3Y*: 32.37%
• 5Y*: 21.43%
• 10Y*: 13.90%

VFV.TO

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: 2.71%
• YTD: 10.06%
• 6M: 8.92%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	4.95%	29.73%
VFV.TO Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF	10.06%	14.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and VFV.TO is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2025	0.09

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. VFV.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: 37
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. VFV.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF (VFV.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	VFV.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.76	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL-C.TO	VFV.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.27	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	2.30	-1.70

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than VFV.TO's maximum drawdown of -8.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and VFV.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	VFV.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.04%	-8.62%	-24.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.88%	-2.35%	-12.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-1.38%	-10.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.12%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	VFV.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.29%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.55%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.34%	11.65%	+13.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.97%	11.65%	+5.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	11.65%	+3.91%

CGL-C.TO vs. VFV.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than VFV.TO's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VFV.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VFV.TO Vanguard S&P 500 Index ETF	0.85%	0.92%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CGL-C.TO and VFV.TO have a correlation of 0.09, 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 VFV.TO?

On fees, VFV.TO is cheaper at 0.09% 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 VFV.TO?

VFV.TO is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

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

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while VFV.TO is S&P 500. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while VFV.TO tracks S&P 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.09% for VFV.TO.