PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGL-C.TO vs. XIC.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XIC.TO (iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XIC.TO is a Canada Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.90%/yr vs 12.57%/yr for XIC.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for XIC.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XIC.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 S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.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 XIC.TO's 12.10% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has outperformed XIC.TO with an annualized return of 13.90%, while XIC.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 12.57% 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%

XIC.TO

1D
1.22%
1M
5.07%
YTD
12.10%
6M
13.12%
1Y
36.92%
3Y*
24.30%
5Y*
14.88%
10Y*
12.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGL-C.TO vs. XIC.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%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		12.10%31.51%21.48%11.73%-5.82%23.42%5.61%22.76%-8.72%8.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XIC.TO is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.43

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

0.28

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

0.13

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

0.05

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

0.04

Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and XIC.TO have become more correlated (0.43) than their long-term average of 0.04, 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 S&P/TSX Capped Composite 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 XIC.TO:
XIC.TO vs. XIU.TOXIC.TO vs. VDY.TOXIC.TO vs. ZCN.TOXIC.TO vs. VCE.TOXIC.TO vs. XEF.TOXIC.TO vs. VEQT.TOXIC.TO vs. VO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XIC.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
XIC.TO
XIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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. XIC.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 S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.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.TOXIC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.34
2.92

-1.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.76
3.75

-1.99

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.53

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.95

3.99

-2.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.76

18.51

-13.75

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. XIC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XIC.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.TOXIC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.34

2.92

-1.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.27

1.14

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

0.84

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.54

+0.06

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, smaller than the maximum XIC.TO drawdown of -48.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XIC.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXIC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-48.21%

+15.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-9.29%

-8.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-12.27%

-5.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-16.24%

-1.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

-37.21%

+14.43%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.88%

0.00%

-14.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-7.04%

-5.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.12%

2.00%

+5.12%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.29% compared to iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) at 3.61%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XIC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXIC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.29%

3.61%

+1.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.55%

10.39%

+11.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.34%

12.71%

+12.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.97%

13.14%

+3.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

14.96%

+0.60%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XIC.TO's 0.06% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XIC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.00%.

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%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		2.00%2.23%2.64%2.95%3.10%2.44%3.03%3.01%3.19%2.49%2.72%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XIC.TO have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XIC.TO is cheaper at 0.06% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XIC.TO is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XIC.TO is Canada Equities. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while XIC.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.06% for XIC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

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