CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and KILO-B.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while KILO-B.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by Purpose Investments. CGL.TO is passively managed, while KILO-B.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL.TO returned 16.83%/yr vs 21.87%/yr for KILO-B.TO. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for KILO-B.TO.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.15% return, which is significantly lower than KILO-B.TO's 4.14% 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%
KILO-B.TO
- 1D
- -0.46%
- 1M
- 0.62%
- YTD
- 4.14%
- 6M
- 5.05%
- 1Y
- 34.09%
- 3Y*
- 32.71%
- 5Y*
- 21.87%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - 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% | 5.51% |
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged | 4.14% | 56.51% | 37.76% | 10.43% | 6.38% | -4.67% | 21.17% | 12.88% | 8.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and KILO-B.TO is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018 | 0.71 |
Over the past year, CGL.TO and KILO-B.TO have become more correlated (0.96) than their long-term average of 0.71, 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.
Return for Risk
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
KILO-B.TO
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.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 Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.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 | KILO-B.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.28 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.53 | 1.97 | -0.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 4.86 | -1.11 |
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 | KILO-B.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 1.37 | -0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | 1.31 | -0.38 |
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 | 1.20 | -0.72 |
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than KILO-B.TO's maximum drawdown of -22.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and KILO-B.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | KILO-B.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -22.54% | -21.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -17.41% | -1.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.36% | -17.41% | -1.95% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -17.41% | -4.77% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.22% | -15.47% | -2.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -7.72% | -10.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.88% | 7.04% | +0.84% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO) have volatilities of 5.60% and 5.43%, 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 | KILO-B.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 5.43% | +0.17% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.18% | 21.50% | +1.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.89% | 25.07% | +1.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 16.84% | +1.49% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 17.99% | -1.58% |
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than KILO-B.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL.TO nor KILO-B.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.69% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, CGL.TO and KILO-B.TO 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, KILO-B.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KILO-B.TO is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.
CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while KILO-B.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Purpose Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.28% for KILO-B.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and KILO-B.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