PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGL-C.TO vs. XFR.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XFR.TO (iShares Floating Rate Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XFR.TO is a Canadian Government Bonds fund tracking the Morningstar Can 1-5Y Core Bd GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.74%/yr vs 2.24%/yr for XFR.TO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XFR.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XFR.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 Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.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 4.39% return, which is significantly higher than XFR.TO's 1.00% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has outperformed XFR.TO with an annualized return of 13.74%, while XFR.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 2.24% annualized 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%

XFR.TO

1D
-0.05%
1M
0.21%
YTD
1.00%
6M
1.33%
1Y
2.96%
3Y*
3.98%
5Y*
3.20%
10Y*
2.24%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		4.39%55.55%37.41%10.13%6.11%-4.85%21.75%11.98%6.86%4.31%
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF		1.00%3.33%4.57%5.29%1.82%0.15%0.98%2.23%1.16%1.46%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XFR.TO is -0.04, 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

-0.04

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

0.02

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

0.01

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

-0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2011

-0.01

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 Floating Rate 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 XFR.TO:
XFR.TO vs. CASH.TOXFR.TO vs. ZMMK.TOXFR.TO vs. CMR.TOXFR.TO vs. XSH.TOXFR.TO vs. XBB.TOXFR.TO vs. ZST.TOXFR.TO vs. XHY.TO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XFR.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: 3535
Overall Rank
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank
XFR.TO
XFR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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. XFR.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 Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.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.TOXFR.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.33
4.12

-2.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.75
6.98

-5.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.96

-0.70

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

29.79

-27.85

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.77

88.61

-83.85

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. XFR.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio of 4.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XFR.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.TOXFR.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.33

4.12

-2.79

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.26

3.92

-2.66

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

1.22

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

1.19

-0.59

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than XFR.TO's maximum drawdown of -4.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XFR.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXFR.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-4.12%

-28.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-0.10%

-17.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-0.30%

-17.07%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-0.30%

-17.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

-4.12%

-18.66%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.34%

-0.05%

-15.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-0.06%

-12.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.06%

0.03%

+7.03%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to iShares Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.TO) at 0.18%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XFR.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXFR.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.33%

0.18%

+5.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.56%

0.48%

+21.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.35%

0.72%

+24.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.98%

0.82%

+16.16%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

1.85%

+13.71%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XFR.TO's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XFR.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%.

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%
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF		2.77%3.23%4.93%4.91%1.85%0.30%1.07%1.96%1.60%0.95%0.77%0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XFR.TO have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XFR.TO is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XFR.TO is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XFR.TO is Canadian Government Bonds. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while XFR.TO tracks Morningstar Can 1-5Y Core Bd GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.14% for XFR.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

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