PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - 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 RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGL.TO achieves a 2.15% return, which is significantly higher than RGPM.NEO's 1.34% 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%

RGPM.NEO

1D
-2.71%
1M
0.98%
YTD
1.34%
6M
8.72%
1Y
60.56%
3Y*
45.22%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)
2.15%60.12%25.67%10.22%
RGPM.NEO
RBC Global Precious Metals Fund
1.34%143.89%36.75%-3.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023

0.52

Over the past year, CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO have become more correlated (0.75) than their long-term average of 0.52, 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. RGPM.NEO — 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: 2929
Overall Rank
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

RGPM.NEO
RGPM.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank
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. RGPM.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). 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.TORGPM.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.27

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.53

2.07

-0.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.75

5.61

-1.87

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is comparable to the RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CGL.TORGPM.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

1.42

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.92

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

1.34

-0.86

Drawdowns

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than RGPM.NEO's maximum drawdown of -29.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGL.TORGPM.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.53%

-29.46%

-15.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.36%

-29.46%

+10.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.36%

-29.46%

+10.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.22%

-23.85%

+5.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.16%

-8.38%

-9.78%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.88%

10.82%

-2.94%

Volatility

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) is 5.60%, while RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a volatility of 16.07%. This indicates that CGL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RGPM.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGL.TORGPM.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.60%

16.07%

-10.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.18%

35.62%

-12.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.89%

42.98%

-16.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.33%

32.73%

-14.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.41%

32.73%

-16.32%

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than RGPM.NEO's 1.02% expense ratio.


Dividends

CGL.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Dividend Comparison

Neither CGL.TO nor RGPM.NEO has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CGL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and RBC Global Asset Management.. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and RGPM.NEO

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