CGL.TO vs. GLDM
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and GLDM (SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while GLDM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL.TO returned 16.83%/yr vs 21.88%/yr for GLDM. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GLDM.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CGL.TO is traded in CAD, while GLDM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the GLDM 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 GLDM's 4.31% 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%
GLDM
- 1D
- -0.55%
- 1M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 4.31%
- 6M
- 5.19%
- 1Y
- 34.13%
- 3Y*
- 33.02%
- 5Y*
- 21.88%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - 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% | 1.30% |
GLDM SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust | 4.31% | 56.67% | 38.00% | 10.55% | 6.63% | -4.88% | 22.98% | 12.29% | 4.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and GLDM 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 Jun 27, 2018 | 0.83 |
The correlation between CGL.TO and GLDM 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. GLDM — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
GLDM
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM). 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 | GLDM | 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 | 1.99 | -0.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 4.90 | -1.15 |
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 | GLDM | 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 | 1.10 | -0.62 |
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than GLDM's maximum drawdown of -22.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and GLDM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -22.74% | -21.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -17.22% | -2.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.36% | -17.22% | -2.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -17.36% | -4.82% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.22% | -15.33% | -2.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -7.08% | -11.08% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.88% | 6.98% | +0.90% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.60% compared to SPDR Gold MiniShares Trust (GLDM) at 5.33%. This indicates that CGL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL.TO | GLDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 5.33% | +0.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.18% | 21.65% | +1.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.89% | 25.17% | +1.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 16.78% | +1.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 16.14% | +0.27% |
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than GLDM's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. GLDM - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL.TO nor GLDM has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, CGL.TO and GLDM 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, GLDM is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GLDM is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.
CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while GLDM is Gold. CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion, while GLDM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.10% for GLDM.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and GLDM
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