PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGL-C.TO vs. XEF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGL-C.TO vs. XEF.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XEF.TO (iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XEF.TO is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Investable Market Index (CAD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.90%/yr vs 9.90%/yr for XEF.TO. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for XEF.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XEF.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 iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (XEF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 4.95% return, which is significantly lower than XEF.TO's 10.86% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has outperformed XEF.TO with an annualized return of 13.90%, while XEF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 9.90% annualized return.

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%

XEF.TO

1D
0.82%
1M
4.86%
YTD
10.86%
6M
11.37%
1Y
23.85%
3Y*
18.31%
5Y*
11.07%
10Y*
9.90%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
XEF.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF		10.86%25.69%12.04%15.21%-9.53%10.36%6.13%15.86%-6.65%18.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XEF.TO is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.26

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.21

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.11

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.04

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2013

0.01

Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and XEF.TO have become more correlated (0.26) than their long-term average of 0.01, 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.

iShares Gold Bullion ETF

iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF

Often compared with CGL-C.TO:
CGL-C.TO vs. CGL.TOCGL-C.TO vs. MNT.TOCGL-C.TO vs. GLDCGL-C.TO vs. PHYS.TOCGL-C.TO vs. ZGLD.TOCGL-C.TO vs. ABX.TOCGL-C.TO vs. XMD.TO
Often compared with XEF.TO:
XEF.TO vs. XEC.TOXEF.TO vs. VIU.TOXEF.TO vs. ZEA.TOXEF.TO vs. XFH.TOXEF.TO vs. IEFAXEF.TO vs. XIC.TOXEF.TO vs. XEF-U.TO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XEF.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: 3737
Overall Rank
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank
XEF.TO
XEF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
XEF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XEF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
XEF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
XEF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
XEF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
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. XEF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (XEF.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.TOXEF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.34
1.73

-0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.76
2.48

-0.72

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.32

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.95

2.13

-0.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.76

8.48

-3.73

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. XEF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the XEF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XEF.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGL-C.TOXEF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.34

1.73

-0.39

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.27

0.82

+0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

0.67

+0.23

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.71

-0.11

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than XEF.TO's maximum drawdown of -28.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XEF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXEF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-28.51%

-4.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-11.27%

-6.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-14.32%

-3.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-24.58%

+7.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

-28.51%

+5.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.88%

-0.27%

-14.61%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-4.61%

-7.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.12%

2.82%

+4.30%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF (XEF.TO) at 4.67%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XEF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXEF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.29%

4.67%

+0.62%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.55%

11.59%

+9.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.34%

13.85%

+11.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.97%

13.58%

+3.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

14.85%

+0.71%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XEF.TO's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XEF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.19%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XEF.TO
iShares Core MSCI EAFE IMI Index ETF		2.19%2.43%2.76%2.75%2.93%2.42%1.93%2.72%2.76%2.10%2.42%2.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XEF.TO have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XEF.TO is cheaper at 0.23% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XEF.TO is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XEF.TO is Foreign Large Cap Equities. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while XEF.TO tracks MSCI EAFE Investable Market Index (CAD). Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.23% for XEF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and XEF.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