CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) is Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while BAM.TO (Brookfield Asset Management Ltd) is a stock. Over the past 3 years, CGL.TO returned 27.16%/yr vs 18.57%/yr for BAM.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a -3.19% return, which is significantly higher than BAM.TO's -6.38% return.
CGL.TO
- 1D
- 0.25%
- 1M
- -9.62%
- YTD
- -3.19%
- 6M
- -3.25%
- 1Y
- 19.93%
- 3Y*
- 27.16%
- 5Y*
- 15.73%
- 10Y*
- 10.99%
BAM.TO
- 1D
- 1.48%
- 1M
- -1.81%
- YTD
- -6.38%
- 6M
- -9.11%
- 1Y
- -7.86%
- 3Y*
- 18.57%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | -3.19% | 60.08% | 25.70% | 11.26% | 3.49% |
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | -6.38% | -4.85% | 51.69% | 42.64% | 33.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and BAM.TO is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022 | 0.08 |
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. BAM.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
BAM.TO
CGL.TO vs. BAM.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 Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.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.TO | BAM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | 0.96 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.87 | -0.35 | +1.21 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.49 | -0.64 | +3.14 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -45.96%, which is greater than BAM.TO's maximum drawdown of -30.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and BAM.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | BAM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.96% | -30.80% | -15.16% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.93% | -30.31% | +5.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.93% | -30.80% | +5.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.93% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.93% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.50% | -21.54% | -0.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.30% | -9.24% | -11.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.66% | 16.31% | -7.65% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) is 7.67%, while Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.TO) has a volatility of 9.78%. This indicates that CGL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BAM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL.TO | BAM.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.67% | 9.78% | -2.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.08% | 22.05% | +2.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.61% | 28.95% | -1.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.54% | 41.28% | -22.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.53% | 41.28% | -24.75% |
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. BAM.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BAM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.93%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | 3.93% | 3.40% | 2.67% | 3.27% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL.TO and BAM.TO have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and BAM.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