CGXF.TO vs. RGPM.NEO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) and RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI, while RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management.. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGXF.TO returned 31.65%/yr vs 45.86%/yr for RGPM.NEO. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGXF.TO charges 1.08%/yr vs 1.02%/yr for RGPM.NEO.

Performance

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGXF.TO achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than RGPM.NEO's 2.68% return.

CGXF.TO

• 1D: 1.95%
• 1M: 3.85%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 3.91%
• 1Y: 47.55%
• 3Y*: 31.65%
• 5Y*: 17.47%
• 10Y*: 10.61%

RGPM.NEO

• 1D: 1.32%
• 1M: 2.09%
• YTD: 2.68%
• 6M: 9.50%
• 1Y: 62.65%
• 3Y*: 45.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	-0.23%	114.19%	11.88%	5.62%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	2.68%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.65

Over the past year, CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO have become more correlated (0.91) than their long-term average of 0.65, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CGXF.TO vs. RGPM.NEO — 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: 33
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 30

RGPM.NEO

RGPM.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 41
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. RGPM.NEO - 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 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.

	CGXF.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	1.46	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	1.84	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.28	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	2.14	-0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.39	5.76	-1.37
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. RGPM.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is comparable to the RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGXF.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGXF.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.20	1.46	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.35	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	1.36	-1.31

Drawdowns

CGXF.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGXF.TO drawdown since its inception was -88.66%, 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 CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGXF.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-88.66%	-29.46%	-59.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.39%	-29.46%	+2.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.39%	-29.46%	+2.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.89%	-22.85%	-0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.71%	-8.39%	-22.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.86%	10.91%	-0.05%

Volatility

CGXF.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) is 14.87%, while RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a volatility of 16.12%. This indicates that CGXF.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.

Volatility by Period

	CGXF.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.87%	16.12%	-1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.10%	35.57%	-3.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	39.84%	42.99%	-3.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.85%	32.71%	-1.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.30%	32.71%	-2.41%

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

CGXF.TO has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is higher than RGPM.NEO's 1.02% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGXF.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Dividend Comparison

CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.37%, while RGPM.NEO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	12.37%	7.43%	8.09%	8.92%	8.54%	8.59%	11.01%	6.69%	7.97%	6.99%	10.68%	11.75%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	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

Can I hold both CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CGXF.TO or RGPM.NEO?

On fees, RGPM.NEO is cheaper at 1.02% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGXF.TO or RGPM.NEO?

RGPM.NEO is cheaper with a 1.02% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

What is the main difference between CGXF.TO and RGPM.NEO?

CGXF.TO is categorized as Gold, while RGPM.NEO is Precious Metals. They also come from different issuers: CI and RBC Global Asset Management.. Their fees differ too: 1.08% for CGXF.TO and 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.