PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CTA vs. CGL.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CTA is traded in USD, while CGL.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CGL.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CTA achieves a 6.10% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's -5.12% return.


CTA

1D
-1.22%
1M
-10.45%
YTD
6.10%
6M
8.48%
1Y
6.45%
3Y*
9.41%
5Y*
10Y*

CGL.TO

1D
0.07%
1M
-11.35%
YTD
-5.12%
6M
-4.61%
1Y
16.70%
3Y*
25.29%
5Y*
12.44%
10Y*
10.05%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CTA
Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF
6.10%0.88%24.15%-2.23%9.01%
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)
-5.12%67.73%15.88%13.97%-15.42%

Correlation

The correlation between CTA and CGL.TO is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.15

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

0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2022

-0.05

The correlation between CTA and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (all time) to 0.15 (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

CTA vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CTA
CTA Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
CTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
CTA Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
CTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
CTA Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

CGL.TO
CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


CTACGL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.14

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.44

0.70

-0.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.24

2.00

-0.76

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTA Sharpe Ratio is 0.28, which is lower than the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTA and CGL.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...

Drawdowns

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTA drawdown since its inception was -18.07%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -62.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTA and CGL.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CTACGL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.07%

-62.05%

+43.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.94%

-27.17%

+14.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.94%

-27.17%

+14.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.94%

-24.91%

+11.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.71%

-32.74%

+27.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.57%

9.43%

-4.86%

Volatility

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF (CTA) is 6.16%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a volatility of 7.69%. This indicates that CTA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CTACGL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.16%

7.69%

-1.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.59%

24.50%

-6.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.33%

28.25%

-7.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.61%

19.70%

-3.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.61%

17.92%

-1.31%

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTA has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

CTA vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

CTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CTA
Simplify Managed Futures Strategy ETF
5.13%3.19%4.80%7.78%6.58%

Frequently Asked Questions


CTA and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CGL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for CTA.

CTA is categorized as Systematic Trend, while CGL.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: Simplify and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for CTA and 0.55% for CGL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CTA and CGL.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