CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.TO).
CGL.TO and MNT.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CGL.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold Bullion. It was launched on May 28, 2009.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 8.13% | 60.12% | 25.67% | 11.26% | -1.07% | -4.58% | 23.41% | 16.58% | -3.19% | 11.68% |
MNT.TO Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves | 6.88% | 61.23% | 44.81% | 3.61% | 10.52% | -10.51% | 26.14% | 13.47% | 5.87% | 5.52% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 8.13% return, which is significantly higher than MNT.TO's 6.88% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO has underperformed MNT.TO with an annualized return of 12.77%, while MNT.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 14.79% annualized return.
CGL.TO
- 1D
- 3.91%
- 1M
- -11.27%
- YTD
- 8.13%
- 6M
- 19.83%
- 1Y
- 45.70%
- 3Y*
- 31.08%
- 5Y*
- 20.28%
- 10Y*
- 12.77%
MNT.TO
- 1D
- 3.93%
- 1M
- -11.28%
- YTD
- 6.88%
- 6M
- 14.20%
- 1Y
- 40.58%
- 3Y*
- 35.64%
- 5Y*
- 24.73%
- 10Y*
- 14.79%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
Return for Risk
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
MNT.TO
CGL.TO vs. MNT.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 Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.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 | MNT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.65 | 1.27 | +0.38 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.10 | 1.75 | +0.35 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.25 | +0.06 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.47 | 1.62 | +0.86 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.06 | 5.94 | +3.11 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGL.TO | MNT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.65 | 1.27 | +0.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.14 | 1.24 | -0.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.79 | 0.76 | +0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.51 | 0.47 | +0.03 |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and MNT.TO is 0.67, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL.TO nor MNT.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than MNT.TO's maximum drawdown of -34.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and MNT.TO.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | MNT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -34.79% | -9.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -25.01% | +5.65% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -25.01% | +2.83% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | -33.58% | +9.86% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.43% | -14.82% | +1.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.20% | -15.65% | -2.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.29% | 6.81% | -1.52% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. MNT.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) is 11.20%, while Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.TO) has a volatility of 13.84%. This indicates that CGL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MNT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CGL.TO | MNT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.20% | 13.84% | -2.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.10% | 27.16% | -3.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.83% | 32.08% | -4.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.98% | 20.12% | -2.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.28% | 19.50% | -3.22% |