CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 11.94%/yr vs 16.89%/yr for ZEB.TO. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for ZEB.TO.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a -3.54% return, which is significantly lower than ZEB.TO's 32.66% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has underperformed ZEB.TO with an annualized return of 11.94%, while ZEB.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 16.89% annualized return.
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.74%
- 6M
- -16.38%
- YTD
- -3.54%
- 1Y
- 23.59%
- 3Y*
- 29.48%
- 5Y*
- 19.65%
- 10Y*
- 11.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.16%
ZEB.TO
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- 1.99%
- 6M
- 31.28%
- YTD
- 32.66%
- 1Y
- 66.60%
- 3Y*
- 35.61%
- 5Y*
- 21.11%
- 10Y*
- 16.89%
- ALL TIME*
- 14.33%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | CA$708.29K | CA$726.97K | CA$936.83K |
| CA$126.80M | CA$156.35M | CA$135.34M |
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -3.54% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 11.98% | 6.86% | 4.31% |
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF | 32.66% | 43.43% | 24.58% | 10.87% | -10.38% | 39.38% | 3.52% | 16.06% | -8.85% | 14.26% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZEB.TO is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2012 | -0.15 |
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZEB.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (all time) to 0.19 (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.
Return for Risk
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
ZEB.TO
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CGL-C.TO | ZEB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -4.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -5.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.86 | -0.68 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.01 | 7.93 | -6.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.27 | 33.19 | -30.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, smaller than the maximum ZEB.TO drawdown of -39.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and ZEB.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | ZEB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.01% | -39.69% | +9.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.55% | -8.44% | -15.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.55% | -14.80% | -8.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.55% | -25.97% | +2.42% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.55% | -39.69% | +16.14% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.77% | -3.12% | -18.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.79% | -5.61% | -5.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.40% | 2.01% | +8.39% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 6.62% compared to BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) at 5.06%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZEB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL-C.TO | ZEB.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.62% | 5.06% | +1.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.80% | 11.83% | +10.97% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.96% | 13.66% | +13.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.47% | 13.64% | +3.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.64% | 16.93% | -1.29% |
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEB.TO's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF | 2.29% | 2.95% | 3.98% | 4.75% | 4.29% | 3.13% | 4.15% | 3.65% | 3.64% | 3.02% | 3.19% | 3.70% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL-C.TO and ZEB.TO have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZEB.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZEB.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
CGL-C.TO is categorized as Gold, while ZEB.TO is Financials Equities. CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while ZEB.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.25% for ZEB.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and ZEB.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