CGL.TO vs. AAAU
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both Precious Metals funds - CGL.TO tracks the Gold Bullion while AAAU tracks the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL.TO returned 16.83%/yr vs 21.78%/yr for AAAU. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CGL.TO is traded in CAD, while AAAU is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the AAAU values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.15% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 4.25% return.
CGL.TO
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- -1.87%
- YTD
- 2.15%
- 6M
- 4.29%
- 1Y
- 29.45%
- 3Y*
- 29.31%
- 5Y*
- 16.83%
- 10Y*
- 11.98%
AAAU
- 1D
- -0.61%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 4.25%
- 6M
- 5.10%
- 1Y
- 33.99%
- 3Y*
- 32.90%
- 5Y*
- 21.78%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.15% | 60.12% | 25.67% | 11.26% | -1.07% | -4.58% | 23.41% | 16.58% | 8.98% |
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF | 4.25% | 56.54% | 37.82% | 10.47% | 6.60% | -4.88% | 22.90% | 12.37% | 13.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and AAAU is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018 | 0.83 |
The correlation between CGL.TO and AAAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.
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.TO vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
AAAU
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.TO | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.27 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.27 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.53 | 1.98 | -0.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 4.88 | -1.13 |
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.TO | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 1.36 | -0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | 1.31 | -0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.73 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 1.19 | -0.71 |
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than AAAU's maximum drawdown of -22.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and AAAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -22.70% | -21.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -17.23% | -2.13% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.36% | -17.23% | -2.13% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -17.38% | -4.80% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.22% | -15.39% | -2.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -6.98% | -11.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.88% | 6.99% | +0.89% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) have volatilities of 5.60% and 5.36%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL.TO | AAAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 5.36% | +0.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.18% | 21.61% | +1.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.89% | 25.13% | +1.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 16.71% | +1.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 16.29% | +0.12% |
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than AAAU's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL.TO nor AAAU has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, CGL.TO and AAAU 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.
On fees, AAAU is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
AAAU is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.
CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.18% for AAAU.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and AAAU
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