CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and AGCC.TO (Global X Silver Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while AGCC.TO is a Silver fund actively managed by Global X. CGL.TO is passively managed, while AGCC.TO is actively managed. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for AGCC.TO.

Performance

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Global X Silver Covered Call ETF (AGCC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.15% return, which is significantly higher than AGCC.TO's 1.95% 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%

AGCC.TO

• 1D: -2.45%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 1.95%
• 6M: 19.93%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	2.15%	5.73%
AGCC.TO Global X Silver Covered Call ETF	1.95%	37.24%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL.TO and AGCC.TO is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 9, 2025	0.75

Return for Risk

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGL.TO

CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 29
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
CGL.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.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Global X Silver Covered Call ETF (AGCC.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.TO	AGCC.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.10	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.51	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.53	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.75	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL.TO	AGCC.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.10	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92	—	—
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	1.06	-0.58

Drawdowns

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than AGCC.TO's maximum drawdown of -39.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and AGCC.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL.TO	AGCC.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.53%	-39.17%	-5.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.18%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-23.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.22%	-32.43%	+14.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-16.63%	-1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.88%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CGL.TO	AGCC.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.60%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.18%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.89%	64.60%	-37.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.33%	64.60%	-46.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.41%	64.60%	-48.19%

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CGL.TO vs. AGCC.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AGCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.55%.

Position	TTM	2025
AGCC.TO Global X Silver Covered Call ETF	5.55%	1.49%
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGL.TO and AGCC.TO in my portfolio?

CGL.TO and AGCC.TO have a correlation of 0.75, 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.TO or AGCC.TO?

On fees, CGL.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.TO or AGCC.TO?

CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for AGCC.TO.

What is the main difference between CGL.TO and AGCC.TO?

CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while AGCC.TO is Silver. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.60% for AGCC.TO.