CGL-C.TO vs. ZGD.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and ZGD.TO (BMO Equal Weight Global Gold Index ETF) are both Gold funds - CGL-C.TO tracks the LBMA Gold Price (CAD) while ZGD.TO tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Global Gold Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 12.02%/yr vs 14.57%/yr for ZGD.TO. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for ZGD.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. ZGD.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 BMO Equal Weight Global Gold Index ETF (ZGD.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a -4.25% return, which is significantly higher than ZGD.TO's -6.39% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has underperformed ZGD.TO with an annualized return of 12.02%, while ZGD.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 14.57% annualized return.

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: -2.94%
• 1M: -10.10%
• YTD: -4.25%
• 6M: -7.52%
• 1Y: 23.69%
• 3Y*: 30.05%
• 5Y*: 20.25%
• 10Y*: 12.02%

ZGD.TO

• 1D: -4.77%
• 1M: -14.26%
• YTD: -6.39%
• 6M: -14.43%
• 1Y: 49.15%
• 3Y*: 49.44%
• 5Y*: 27.33%
• 10Y*: 14.57%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	-4.25%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-4.85%	21.75%	11.98%	6.86%	4.31%
ZGD.TO BMO Equal Weight Global Gold Index ETF	-6.39%	143.74%	37.44%	10.13%	-2.33%	-12.59%	26.58%	53.60%	-12.09%	-0.71%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2012	0.56

Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO have become more correlated (0.78) than their long-term average of 0.56, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. ZGD.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: 26
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 24

ZGD.TO

ZGD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 31
ZGD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
ZGD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
ZGD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
ZGD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
ZGD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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. ZGD.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 Global Gold Index ETF (ZGD.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	ZGD.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	1.02	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	1.46	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.20	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.06	1.47	-0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	3.79	-0.96

CGL-C.TO vs. ZGD.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is comparable to the ZGD.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and ZGD.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.

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.01%, smaller than the maximum ZGD.TO drawdown of -60.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	ZGD.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.01%	-60.59%	+30.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.35%	-33.55%	+11.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.35%	-33.55%	+11.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.35%	-42.75%	+20.40%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	-51.83%	+29.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.35%	-31.95%	+9.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.73%	-28.83%	+18.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.40%	13.02%	-4.62%

Volatility

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

The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) is 8.27%, while BMO Equal Weight Global Gold Index ETF (ZGD.TO) has a volatility of 17.86%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZGD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	ZGD.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	17.86%	-9.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.81%	40.17%	-17.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.48%	48.45%	-21.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.29%	37.16%	-19.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	37.65%	-22.08%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than ZGD.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZGD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%.

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%
ZGD.TO BMO Equal Weight Global Gold Index ETF	0.23%	0.22%	0.56%	0.72%	0.73%	0.36%	0.15%	1.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO in my portfolio?

CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CGL-C.TO or ZGD.TO?

On fees, CGL-C.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGL-C.TO or ZGD.TO?

CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ZGD.TO.

What is the main difference between CGL-C.TO and ZGD.TO?

CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD), while ZGD.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Global Gold Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.60% for ZGD.TO.