PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGL.TO vs. XIC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGL.TO vs. XIC.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and XIC.TO (iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion, while XIC.TO is a Canada Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CGL.TO returned 11.98%/yr vs 12.48%/yr for XIC.TO. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for XIC.TO.

Performance

CGL.TO vs. XIC.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 iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO). 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 lower than XIC.TO's 10.75% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CGL.TO having a 11.98% annualized return and XIC.TO not far ahead at 12.48%.

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%

XIC.TO

1D
-1.05%
1M
3.59%
YTD
10.75%
6M
12.90%
1Y
34.79%
3Y*
23.62%
5Y*
14.60%
10Y*
12.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		2.15%60.12%25.67%11.26%-1.07%-4.58%23.41%16.58%-3.19%11.68%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		10.75%31.51%21.48%11.73%-5.82%23.42%5.61%22.76%-8.72%8.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CGL.TO and XIC.TO is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.45

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

0.36

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2009

0.22

Over the past year, CGL.TO and XIC.TO have become more correlated (0.45) than their long-term average of 0.22, 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.

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF

Often compared with CGL.TO:
CGL.TO vs. CGL-C.TOCGL.TO vs. XGD.TOCGL.TO vs. KILO.TOCGL.TO vs. MNT.TOCGL.TO vs. GLDMCGL.TO vs. VOOCGL.TO vs. SVR.TO
Often compared with XIC.TO:
XIC.TO vs. XIU.TOXIC.TO vs. VDY.TOXIC.TO vs. ZCN.TOXIC.TO vs. VCE.TOXIC.TO vs. XEF.TOXIC.TO vs. VEQT.TOXIC.TO vs. VO

Return for Risk

CGL.TO vs. XIC.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: 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
XIC.TO
XIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
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. XIC.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 S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.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.TOXIC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.10
2.76

-1.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.51
3.57

-2.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.50

-0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.53

3.76

-2.24

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.75

17.44

-13.69

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. XIC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGL.TO and XIC.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGL.TOXIC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

2.76

-1.66

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.92

1.12

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.73

0.84

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

0.54

-0.06

Drawdowns

CGL.TO vs. XIC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGL.TO drawdown since its inception was -44.53%, smaller than the maximum XIC.TO drawdown of -48.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGL.TO and XIC.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGL.TOXIC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.53%

-48.21%

+3.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.36%

-9.29%

-10.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.36%

-12.27%

-7.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.18%

-16.24%

-5.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.72%

-37.21%

+13.49%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.22%

-1.05%

-17.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.16%

-7.04%

-11.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.88%

2.00%

+5.88%

Volatility

CGL.TO vs. XIC.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.60% compared to iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) at 3.48%. This indicates that CGL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XIC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGL.TOXIC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.60%

3.48%

+2.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.18%

10.33%

+12.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.89%

12.67%

+14.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.33%

13.13%

+5.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.41%

14.96%

+1.45%

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

CGL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than XIC.TO's 0.06% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGL.TO vs. XIC.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XIC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		2.02%2.23%2.64%2.95%3.10%2.44%3.03%3.01%3.19%2.49%2.72%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGL.TO and XIC.TO have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XIC.TO is cheaper at 0.06% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XIC.TO is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.

CGL.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while XIC.TO is Canada Equities. CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion, while XIC.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CGL.TO and 0.06% for XIC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGL.TO and XIC.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