PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGL.TO vs. CGXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI. CGL.TO is passively managed, while CGXF.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO returned 11.98%/yr vs 10.53%/yr for CGXF.TO. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for CGXF.TO.

Performance

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.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 CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.15% return, which is significantly higher than CGXF.TO's -2.14% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO has outperformed CGXF.TO with an annualized return of 11.98%, while CGXF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.53% annualized 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%

CGXF.TO

1D
-2.68%
1M
1.53%
YTD
-2.14%
6M
2.55%
1Y
44.73%
3Y*
30.89%
5Y*
17.02%
10Y*
10.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		2.15%60.12%25.67%11.26%-1.07%-4.58%23.41%16.58%-3.19%11.68%
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		-2.14%114.19%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%15.23%20.53%-18.76%5.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL.TO and CGXF.TO is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.76

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.75

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2011

0.57

Over the past year, CGL.TO and CGXF.TO have become more correlated (0.77) than their long-term average of 0.57, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common

Often compared with CGL.TO:
CGL.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGL.TO vs. XGD.TOCGL.TO vs. KILO.TOCGL.TO vs. MNT.TOCGL.TO vs. GLDMCGL.TO vs. VOOCGL.TO vs. SVR.TO
Often compared with CGXF.TO:
CGXF.TO vs. CCOM.TOCGXF.TO vs. AGCC.TOCGXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TOCGXF.TO vs. HGGG.TOCGXF.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGXF.TO vs. CMNY.TOCGXF.TO vs. HUG.TO

Return for Risk

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.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: 2929
Overall Rank
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO
CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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. CGXF.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 CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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.TOCGXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.10
1.13

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.51
1.57

-0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.22

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.53

1.64

-0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.75

4.17

-0.42

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.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is comparable to the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL.TO and CGXF.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGL.TOCGXF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

1.13

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.92

0.56

+0.37

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.73

0.35

+0.38

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

0.05

+0.43

Drawdowns

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and CGXF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL.TOCGXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.53%

-88.66%

+44.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.36%

-27.39%

+8.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.36%

-27.39%

+8.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.18%

-37.19%

+15.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.72%

-39.68%

+15.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.22%

-24.36%

+6.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.16%

-30.71%

+12.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.88%

10.76%

-2.88%

Volatility

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) is 5.60%, while CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a volatility of 14.76%. This indicates that CGL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL.TOCGXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.60%

14.76%

-9.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.18%

32.10%

-8.92%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.89%

39.82%

-12.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.33%

30.85%

-12.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.41%

30.30%

-13.89%

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

CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than CGXF.TO's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.61%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		12.61%7.43%8.09%8.92%8.54%8.59%11.01%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%11.75%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL.TO and CGXF.TO have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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.

CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while CGXF.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and CGXF.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