CGL-C.TO vs. ZGLH.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and ZGLH.TO (BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while ZGLH.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by BMO. CGL-C.TO is passively managed, while ZGLH.TO is actively managed. Over the past year, CGL-C.TO returned 33.77% vs 30.04% for ZGLH.TO. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGL-C.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for ZGLH.TO.

Performance

CGL-C.TO vs. ZGLH.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 Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF (ZGLH.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 4.95% return, which is significantly higher than ZGLH.TO's 2.67% 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%

ZGLH.TO

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: -1.84%
• YTD: 2.67%
• 6M: 5.05%
• 1Y: 30.04%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	4.95%	55.55%	27.75%
ZGLH.TO BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF	2.67%	61.24%	18.72%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZGLH.TO is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 12, 2024	0.74

Over the past year, CGL-C.TO and ZGLH.TO have become more correlated (0.96) than their long-term average of 0.74, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CGL-C.TO vs. ZGLH.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: 37
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

ZGLH.TO

ZGLH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 31
ZGLH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
ZGLH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
ZGLH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ZGLH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
ZGLH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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. ZGLH.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 Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF (ZGLH.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.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	1.16	+0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	1.55	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.23	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	1.55	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.76	3.77	+0.99
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. ZGLH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is comparable to the ZGLH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL-C.TO and ZGLH.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL-C.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.34	1.16	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.27	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	1.62	-1.02

Drawdowns

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

The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, which is greater than ZGLH.TO's maximum drawdown of -19.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and ZGLH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL-C.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.04%	-19.51%	-13.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.37%	-19.51%	+2.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.88%	-17.59%	+2.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-3.65%	-8.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.12%	8.00%	-0.88%

Volatility

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

The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) is 5.29%, while BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF (ZGLH.TO) has a volatility of 5.80%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZGLH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL-C.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.29%	5.80%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.55%	22.45%	-0.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.34%	25.97%	-0.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.97%	21.97%	-5.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	21.97%	-6.41%

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

CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ZGLH.TO's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

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

Neither CGL-C.TO nor ZGLH.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, CGL-C.TO and ZGLH.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

On fees, ZGLH.TO is cheaper at 0.23% 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 ZGLH.TO?

ZGLH.TO is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

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

CGL-C.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while ZGLH.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.23% for ZGLH.TO.