CGL-C.TO vs. XEG.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XEG.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while XEG.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 12.02%/yr vs 10.58%/yr for XEG.TO. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XEG.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XEG.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 S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF (XEG.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 -4.25% return, which is significantly lower than XEG.TO's 26.17% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has outperformed XEG.TO with an annualized return of 12.02%, while XEG.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.58% annualized return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: -2.94%
• 1M: -10.10%
• YTD: -4.25%
• 6M: -7.52%
• 1Y: 23.69%
• 3Y*: 30.05%
• 5Y*: 20.25%
• 10Y*: 12.02%

XEG.TO

• 1D: -3.29%
• 1M: -11.04%
• YTD: 26.17%
• 6M: 28.83%
• 1Y: 44.15%
• 3Y*: 24.36%
• 5Y*: 25.47%
• 10Y*: 10.58%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	-4.25%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-4.85%	21.75%	11.98%	6.86%	4.31%
XEG.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF	26.17%	16.72%	14.04%	3.55%	53.25%	83.71%	-34.44%	9.04%	-27.05%	-11.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XEG.TO is 0.01, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2012	-0.07

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XEG.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (all time) to 0.09 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XEG.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: 26
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 24

XEG.TO

XEG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 60
XEG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
XEG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
XEG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 56
XEG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XEG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. XEG.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 S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF (XEG.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.

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	XEG.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	1.90	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	2.39	-1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.31	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.06	2.76	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	10.50	-7.67

CGL-C.TO vs. XEG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is lower than the XEG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XEG.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.

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, smaller than the maximum XEG.TO drawdown of -87.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XEG.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	XEG.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.01%	-87.51%	+57.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.35%	-16.09%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.35%	-25.67%	+3.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.35%	-28.42%	+6.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	-79.66%	+56.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.35%	-16.09%	-6.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.73%	-34.56%	+23.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.40%	4.22%	+4.18%

Volatility

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

The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) is 8.27%, while iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF (XEG.TO) has a volatility of 8.92%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XEG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	XEG.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	8.92%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.81%	19.91%	+2.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.48%	23.42%	+3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.29%	28.69%	-11.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	33.41%	-17.84%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than XEG.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XEG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.03%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XEG.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF	3.03%	3.63%	3.46%	4.26%	3.31%	1.64%	2.96%	2.70%	2.25%	1.41%	1.40%	3.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CGL-C.TO and XEG.TO have a correlation of 0.01, 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 XEG.TO?

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 XEG.TO?

CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XEG.TO.

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

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Gold, while XEG.TO is Energy Equities. CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while XEG.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.60% for XEG.TO.