CGL.TO vs. PSA.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and PSA.TO (Purpose High Interest Savings Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while PSA.TO is a Money Market fund actively managed by Purpose Investments. CGL.TO is passively managed, while PSA.TO is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO returned 12.09%/yr vs 2.25%/yr for PSA.TO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for PSA.TO.

Performance

CGL.TO vs. PSA.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 Purpose High Interest Savings Fund (PSA.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.98% return, which is significantly higher than PSA.TO's 0.90% return. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO has outperformed PSA.TO with an annualized return of 12.09%, while PSA.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 2.25% annualized return.

CGL.TO

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -1.89%
• YTD: 2.98%
• 6M: 4.94%
• 1Y: 29.90%
• 3Y*: 29.26%
• 5Y*: 17.02%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

PSA.TO

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.17%
• YTD: 0.90%
• 6M: 1.09%
• 1Y: 2.35%
• 3Y*: 3.73%
• 5Y*: 3.17%
• 10Y*: 2.25%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	2.98%	60.12%	25.67%	11.26%	-1.07%	-4.58%	23.41%	16.58%	-3.19%	11.68%
PSA.TO Purpose High Interest Savings Fund	0.90%	2.64%	4.56%	5.12%	2.34%	0.60%	0.93%	2.22%	1.65%	1.09%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL.TO and PSA.TO is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.01
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2013	-0.01

Return for Risk

CGL.TO vs. PSA.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: 31
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

PSA.TO

PSA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 100
PSA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
PSA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
PSA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 100
PSA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
PSA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. PSA.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 High Interest Savings Fund (PSA.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	PSA.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.12	10.34	-9.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.53	28.20	-26.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	6.27	-5.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.55	117.76	-116.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.77	422.79	-419.02
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. PSA.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.12, which is lower than the PSA.TO Sharpe Ratio of 10.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL.TO and PSA.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGL.TO	PSA.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.12	10.34	-9.22
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93	11.67	-10.73
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.74	9.68	-8.94
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	9.26	-8.78

Drawdowns

CGL.TO vs. PSA.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than PSA.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and PSA.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGL.TO	PSA.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.53%	-0.04%	-44.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.36%	-0.02%	-19.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.36%	-0.02%	-19.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.18%	-0.04%	-22.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-23.72%	-0.04%	-23.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.55%	0.00%	-17.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.16%	-0.00%	-18.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.95%	0.01%	+7.94%

Volatility

CGL.TO vs. PSA.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.60% compared to Purpose High Interest Savings Fund (PSA.TO) at 0.06%. This indicates that CGL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PSA.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGL.TO	PSA.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.60%	0.06%	+5.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.18%	0.15%	+23.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.88%	0.23%	+26.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.33%	0.27%	+18.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.41%	0.24%	+16.17%

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

CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than PSA.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL.TO vs. PSA.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PSA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PSA.TO Purpose High Interest Savings Fund	2.33%	2.61%	4.47%	5.05%	2.26%	0.59%	0.94%	2.18%	1.66%	1.07%	0.99%	1.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGL.TO and PSA.TO in my portfolio?

CGL.TO and PSA.TO have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CGL.TO or PSA.TO?

On fees, PSA.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGL.TO or PSA.TO?

PSA.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.

What is the main difference between CGL.TO and PSA.TO?

CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while PSA.TO is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Purpose Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.17% for PSA.TO.