PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO).

CGXF.TO and CGL.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CGXF.TO is an actively managed fund by CI. It was launched on Mar 3, 2022. CGL.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold Bullion. It was launched on May 28, 2009.

Performance

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		6.89%114.19%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%15.23%20.53%-18.76%5.51%
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		8.13%60.12%25.67%11.26%-1.07%-4.58%23.41%16.58%-3.19%11.68%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGXF.TO achieves a 6.89% return, which is significantly lower than CGL.TO's 8.13% return. Over the past 10 years, CGXF.TO has outperformed CGL.TO with an annualized return of 13.49%, while CGL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 12.77% annualized return.

CGXF.TO

1D
6.44%
1M
-17.38%
YTD
6.89%
6M
18.28%
1Y
70.32%
3Y*
34.03%
5Y*
21.17%
10Y*
13.49%

CGL.TO

1D
3.91%
1M
-11.27%
YTD
8.13%
6M
19.83%
1Y
45.70%
3Y*
31.08%
5Y*
20.28%
10Y*
12.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with CGXF.TO:
CGXF.TO vs. CCOM.TOCGXF.TO vs. CMNY.TOCGXF.TO vs. HGGG.TOCGXF.TO vs. VXM-B.TOCGXF.TO vs. GDMNCGXF.TO vs. SBT.TOCGXF.TO vs. HUG.TO
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

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

CGXF.TO has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Return for Risk

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGXF.TO
CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
CGL.TO
CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
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.

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.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.

CGXF.TOCGL.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.78

1.65

+0.13

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.14

2.10

+0.04

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.31

+0.01

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.64

2.47

+0.17

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.78

9.06

+0.72

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is comparable to the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGXF.TO and CGL.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGXF.TOCGL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.78

1.65

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

1.14

-0.43

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

0.79

-0.34

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.06

0.51

-0.45

Correlation

The correlation between CGXF.TO and CGL.TO is 0.57, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.53%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common		9.53%7.43%8.09%8.92%8.54%8.59%11.01%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%11.75%
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%

Drawdowns

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -88.66%, which is greater than CGL.TO's maximum drawdown of -44.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGXF.TO and CGL.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

CGXF.TOCGL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-88.66%

-44.53%

-44.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.39%

-19.36%

-8.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.19%

-22.18%

-15.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.68%

-23.72%

-15.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-17.38%

-13.43%

-3.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.85%

-18.20%

-12.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.40%

5.29%

+2.11%

Volatility

CGXF.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a higher volatility of 16.05% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 11.20%. This indicates that CGXF.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

CGXF.TOCGL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

16.05%

11.20%

+4.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.80%

24.10%

+8.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

39.76%

27.83%

+11.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.17%

17.98%

+12.19%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.09%

16.28%

+13.81%