PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGL-C.TO vs. XGRO.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XGRO.TO (iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XGRO.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while XGRO.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.90%/yr vs 10.17%/yr for XGRO.TO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XGRO.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XGRO.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 Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.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 XGRO.TO's 10.70% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has outperformed XGRO.TO with an annualized return of 13.90%, while XGRO.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.17% 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%

XGRO.TO

1D
0.29%
1M
5.00%
YTD
10.70%
6M
8.71%
1Y
23.83%
3Y*
18.10%
5Y*
10.89%
10Y*
10.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGL-C.TO vs. XGRO.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%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		10.70%15.59%19.53%15.01%-11.08%14.29%11.51%17.97%-6.73%11.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XGRO.TO is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.22

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

0.17

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

0.06

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

0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2011

-0.01

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XGRO.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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 Growth 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 XGRO.TO:
XGRO.TO vs. XEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. VGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. VEQT.TOXGRO.TO vs. XCG.TOXGRO.TO vs. TGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. ZGRO.TOXGRO.TO vs. XAW.TO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XGRO.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
XGRO.TO
XGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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. XGRO.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 Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.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.TOXGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.34
2.22

-0.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.76
3.13

-1.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.42

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.95

3.36

-1.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.76

14.92

-10.16

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. XGRO.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the XGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XGRO.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.TOXGRO.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.34

2.22

-0.88

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.27

0.99

+0.28

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

0.83

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.36

+0.24

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, smaller than the maximum XGRO.TO drawdown of -47.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XGRO.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-47.97%

+14.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-7.12%

-10.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-12.47%

-4.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-18.40%

+0.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

-25.85%

+3.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.88%

0.00%

-14.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-8.49%

-3.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.12%

1.60%

+5.52%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio (XGRO.TO) at 3.40%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XGRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.29%

3.40%

+1.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.55%

9.20%

+12.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.34%

10.78%

+14.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.97%

11.05%

+5.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

12.26%

+3.30%

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

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

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%.

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%
XGRO.TO
iShares Core Growth ETF Portfolio		1.75%1.92%1.98%2.22%1.86%1.66%1.94%2.21%7.42%2.04%2.65%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XGRO.TO have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XGRO.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 XGRO.TO is Diversified Portfolio. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.20% for XGRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

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