CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO
CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) and ZQQ.TO (BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while ZQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO returned 13.74%/yr vs 20.08%/yr for ZQQ.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 ZQQ.TO.
Performance
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL-C.TO achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly lower than ZQQ.TO's 19.82% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL-C.TO has underperformed ZQQ.TO with an annualized return of 13.74%, while ZQQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.08% 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%
ZQQ.TO
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 10.63%
- YTD
- 19.82%
- 6M
- 18.08%
- 1Y
- 38.53%
- 3Y*
- 26.42%
- 5Y*
- 16.12%
- 10Y*
- 20.08%
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
ZQQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) | 19.82% | 18.38% | 24.00% | 52.52% | -33.75% | 26.68% | 45.33% | 37.08% | -2.29% | 31.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZQQ.TO is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.15 |
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 Apr 11, 2011 | -0.10 |
The correlation between CGL-C.TO and ZQQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (all time) to 0.15 (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. ZQQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL-C.TO
ZQQ.TO
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.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 NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) (ZQQ.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 | ZQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.43 | -0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.94 | 3.01 | -1.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.77 | 11.25 | -6.48 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGL-C.TO | ZQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.33 | 2.46 | -1.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.26 | 0.72 | +0.55 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.89 | 0.90 | -0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.91 | -0.31 |
Drawdowns
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.04%, smaller than the maximum ZQQ.TO drawdown of -36.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL-C.TO and ZQQ.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL-C.TO | ZQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.04% | -36.39% | +3.35% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.37% | -12.86% | -4.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.37% | -22.79% | +5.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.55% | -36.39% | +18.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.78% | -36.39% | +13.61% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.34% | -0.28% | -15.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.24% | -5.37% | -6.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.06% | 3.43% | +3.63% |
Volatility
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.33% compared to BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) (ZQQ.TO) at 4.54%. This indicates that CGL-C.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZQQ.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 | ZQQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.33% | 4.54% | +0.79% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.56% | 12.02% | +9.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.35% | 15.73% | +9.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.98% | 22.57% | -5.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.56% | 22.41% | -6.85% |
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL-C.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ZQQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL-C.TO vs. ZQQ.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.22%.
| 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% |
ZQQ.TO BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity (CAD Hedged) | 0.22% | 0.27% | 0.37% | 0.32% | 0.45% | 0.14% | 0.41% | 0.51% | 0.64% | 0.57% | 1.60% | 0.81% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL-C.TO and ZQQ.TO have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZQQ.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 ZQQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CGL-C.TO tracks Gold, while ZQQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL-C.TO and 0.39% for ZQQ.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGL-C.TO and ZQQ.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