PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGL-C.TO vs. XQQ.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.74%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for XQQ.TO. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for XQQ.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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 lower than XQQ.TO's 19.81% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has underperformed XQQ.TO with an annualized return of 13.74%, while XQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.70% 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%

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGL-C.TO vs. XQQ.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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%37.48%-2.33%31.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XQQ.TO is 0.14, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.14

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

0.04

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

-0.06

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

-0.09

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

-0.10

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and XQQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (all time) to 0.14 (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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

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 XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. XQQ.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
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.33
2.45

-1.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.75
3.20

-1.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.42

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

3.03

-1.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.77

11.31

-6.54

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. XQQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and XQQ.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.TOXQQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.33

2.45

-1.12

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.26

0.68

+0.58

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

0.89

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.86

-0.26

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, smaller than the maximum XQQ.TO drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and XQQ.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL-C.TOXQQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.04%

-38.55%

+5.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.37%

-12.76%

-4.61%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.37%

-22.72%

+5.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

-38.55%

+21.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

-38.55%

+15.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.34%

-0.27%

-15.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.24%

-5.92%

-6.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.06%

3.41%

+3.65%

Volatility

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

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) at 4.48%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XQQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL-C.TOXQQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.33%

4.48%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.56%

12.00%

+9.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.35%

15.82%

+9.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.98%

22.52%

-5.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.56%

22.34%

-6.78%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%.

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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL-C.TO and XQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while XQQ.TO tracks Morningstar US Market TR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.39% for XQQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

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