PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.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 Global X Silver ETF (HUZ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGXF.TO achieves a -2.14% return, which is significantly lower than HUZ.TO's 2.35% return. Over the past 10 years, CGXF.TO has underperformed HUZ.TO with an annualized return of 10.53%, while HUZ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 12.04% annualized return.


CGXF.TO

1D
-2.68%
1M
1.53%
YTD
-2.14%
6M
2.55%
1Y
44.73%
3Y*
30.89%
5Y*
17.02%
10Y*
10.53%

HUZ.TO

1D
-2.50%
1M
0.23%
YTD
2.35%
6M
22.30%
1Y
101.00%
3Y*
40.00%
5Y*
17.25%
10Y*
12.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common
-2.14%114.19%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%15.23%20.53%-18.76%5.51%
HUZ.TO
Global X Silver ETF
2.35%129.20%18.72%-3.75%1.17%-15.10%39.27%12.48%-11.38%2.96%

Correlation

The correlation between CGXF.TO and HUZ.TO is 0.72, 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

0.72

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

0.71

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

0.69

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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2011

0.54

The correlation between CGXF.TO and HUZ.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (all time) to 0.72 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CGXF.TO
HUZ.TO

Basic Materials

100.0%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

19.0%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

CGXF.TO
100.0%
HUZ.TO

-

Communication Services

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Energy

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Financial Services

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Healthcare

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Industrials

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Real Estate

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO
19.0%

Technology

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

Utilities

CGXF.TO

-

HUZ.TO

-

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

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.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: 3131
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank

HUZ.TO
HUZ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
HUZ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HUZ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
HUZ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
HUZ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
HUZ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
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. HUZ.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 Global X Silver ETF (HUZ.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.TOHUZ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.33

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.64

2.36

-0.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.17

5.07

-0.90

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

The current CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the HUZ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGXF.TO and HUZ.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


CGXF.TOHUZ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.13

1.72

-0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.56

0.47

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.35

0.36

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.05

0.21

-0.16

Drawdowns

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -88.66%, which is greater than HUZ.TO's maximum drawdown of -81.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGXF.TO and HUZ.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CGXF.TOHUZ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-88.66%

-81.06%

-7.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.39%

-43.11%

+15.72%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.39%

-43.11%

+15.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.19%

-43.11%

+5.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.68%

-48.84%

+9.16%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-24.36%

-38.13%

+13.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.71%

-54.91%

+24.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.76%

19.99%

-9.23%

Volatility

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) is 14.76%, while Global X Silver ETF (HUZ.TO) has a volatility of 16.29%. This indicates that CGXF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HUZ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CGXF.TOHUZ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.76%

16.29%

-1.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.10%

58.22%

-26.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

39.82%

58.94%

-19.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.85%

37.28%

-6.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.30%

33.24%

-2.94%

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

CGXF.TO has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is lower than HUZ.TO's 1.18% expense ratio.


Dividends

CGXF.TO vs. HUZ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.61%, while HUZ.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common
12.61%7.43%8.09%8.92%8.54%8.59%11.01%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%11.75%
HUZ.TO
Global X Silver ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CGXF.TO and HUZ.TO have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CGXF.TO is cheaper at 1.08% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CGXF.TO is cheaper with a 1.08% expense ratio, compared with 1.18% for HUZ.TO.

CGXF.TO is categorized as Gold, while HUZ.TO is Silver. They also come from different issuers: CI and Global X. Their fees differ too: 1.08% for CGXF.TO and 1.18% for HUZ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGXF.TO and HUZ.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