CGL.TO vs. PHYS.TO
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) is Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while PHYS.TO (Sprott Physical Gold Trust) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, CGL.TO returned 16.83%/yr vs 20.78%/yr for PHYS.TO. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.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 PHYS.TO's 2.89% 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%
PHYS.TO
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- YTD
- 2.89%
- 6M
- 3.81%
- 1Y
- 32.90%
- 3Y*
- 31.40%
- 5Y*
- 20.78%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.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% | -5.37% |
PHYS.TO Sprott Physical Gold Trust | 2.89% | 56.35% | 37.41% | 10.65% | 4.96% | -5.37% | 21.38% | 12.13% | 4.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and PHYS.TO is 0.95 - 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 | 0.95 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2018 | 0.80 |
The correlation between CGL.TO and PHYS.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.80 (all time) to 0.95 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. PHYS.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
PHYS.TO
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.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 Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.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 | PHYS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.16 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.25 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.53 | 1.82 | -0.29 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 4.49 | -0.74 |
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 | PHYS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 1.27 | -0.16 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | 1.21 | -0.29 |
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 | 0.60 | -0.12 |
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than PHYS.TO's maximum drawdown of -27.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and PHYS.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | PHYS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -27.08% | -17.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -18.14% | -1.22% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.36% | -18.14% | -1.22% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -18.14% | -4.04% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.22% | -16.29% | -1.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -7.83% | -10.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.88% | 7.34% | +0.54% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS.TO) have volatilities of 5.60% and 5.61%, 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 | PHYS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 5.61% | -0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.18% | 22.21% | +0.97% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.89% | 26.13% | +0.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 17.21% | +1.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 26.82% | -10.41% |
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. PHYS.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither CGL.TO nor PHYS.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, CGL.TO and PHYS.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.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and PHYS.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