CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO
CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XEQT.TO (iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while XEQT.TO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by iShares. CGL.TO is passively managed, while XEQT.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CGL.TO returned 16.83%/yr vs 13.72%/yr for XEQT.TO. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XEQT.TO.
Performance
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.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 XEQT.TO's 12.29% 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%
XEQT.TO
- 1D
- -0.56%
- 1M
- 5.98%
- YTD
- 12.29%
- 6M
- 11.20%
- 1Y
- 29.24%
- 3Y*
- 21.78%
- 5Y*
- 13.72%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.15% | 60.12% | 25.67% | 11.26% | -1.07% | -4.58% | 23.41% | -0.39% |
XEQT.TO iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio | 12.29% | 19.47% | 24.36% | 17.25% | -11.01% | 18.94% | 11.82% | 9.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGL.TO and XEQT.TO is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2019 | 0.10 |
The correlation between CGL.TO and XEQT.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (all time) to 0.27 (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. XEQT.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CGL.TO
XEQT.TO
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.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 iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.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 | XEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.99 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.47 | -0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.53 | 3.56 | -2.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.75 | 15.50 | -11.75 |
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 | XEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 2.53 | -1.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | 1.05 | -0.13 |
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 | 0.95 | -0.47 |
Drawdowns
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, which is greater than XEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -29.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and XEQT.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGL.TO | XEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.53% | -29.74% | -14.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.36% | -8.25% | -11.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.36% | -15.08% | -4.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.18% | -19.56% | -2.62% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.22% | -0.56% | -17.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.16% | -4.11% | -14.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.88% | 1.89% | +5.99% |
Volatility
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.60% compared to iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio (XEQT.TO) at 3.70%. This indicates that CGL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGL.TO | XEQT.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.60% | 3.70% | +1.90% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.18% | 9.38% | +13.80% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.89% | 11.63% | +15.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 13.12% | +5.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 15.56% | +0.85% |
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XEQT.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGL.TO vs. XEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison
CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XEQT.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XEQT.TO iShares Core Equity ETF Portfolio | 1.48% | 1.66% | 2.01% | 2.07% | 2.12% | 1.64% | 1.66% | 1.19% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGL.TO and XEQT.TO have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XEQT.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XEQT.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.
CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XEQT.TO is Global Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.20% for XEQT.TO.
Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and XEQT.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