PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGL-C.TO vs. XEQT.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XEQT.TO (iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XEQT.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by iShares. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while XEQT.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL-C.TO returned 21.43%/yr vs 13.90%/yr for XEQT.TO. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XEQT.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XEQT.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 Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.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 XEQT.TO's 13.22% 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%

XEQT.TO

1D
0.83%
1M
6.02%
YTD
13.22%
6M
11.68%
1Y
30.42%
3Y*
22.22%
5Y*
13.90%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		4.95%55.55%37.41%10.13%6.11%-4.85%21.75%-2.34%
XEQT.TO
iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio		13.22%19.47%24.36%17.25%-11.01%18.94%11.82%9.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XEQT.TO is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.25

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

0.15

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

0.03

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2019

0.01

Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and XEQT.TO have become more correlated (0.25) 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 Equity ETF Portfolio

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 XEQT.TO:
XEQT.TO vs. VFV.TOXEQT.TO vs. VEQT.TOXEQT.TO vs. XGRO.TOXEQT.TO vs. ZEQT.TOXEQT.TO vs. VGRO.TOXEQT.TO vs. XEI.TOXEQT.TO vs. VOO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XEQT.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
XEQT.TO
XEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
XEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
XEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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. XEQT.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 Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.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.TOXEQT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.34
2.62

-1.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.76
3.61

-1.85

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.48

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.95

3.70

-1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.76

16.13

-11.38

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. XEQT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the XEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XEQT.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.TOXEQT.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.34

2.62

-1.28

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.27

1.07

+0.21

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

0.96

-0.36

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than XEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XEQT.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXEQT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-29.74%

-3.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-8.25%

-9.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-15.08%

-2.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-19.56%

+2.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.88%

0.00%

-14.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-4.11%

-8.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.12%

1.89%

+5.23%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.TO) at 3.70%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXEQT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.29%

3.70%

+1.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.55%

9.41%

+12.14%

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%

13.13%

+3.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

15.56%

0.00%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XEQT.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XEQT.TO
iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio		1.47%1.66%2.01%2.07%2.12%1.64%1.66%1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XEQT.TO is Global Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.20% for XEQT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

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