PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FTS.TO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FTS.TO (Fortis Inc.) is a stock, while CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) is Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Over the past 10 years, FTS.TO returned 10.80%/yr vs 10.99%/yr for CGL.TO. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

FTS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTS.TO achieves a 13.43% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's -3.19% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FTS.TO having a 10.80% annualized return and CGL.TO not far ahead at 10.99%.

FTS.TO

1D
0.99%
1M
5.79%
YTD
13.43%
6M
15.37%
1Y
25.87%
3Y*
16.29%
5Y*
11.27%
10Y*
10.80%

CGL.TO

1D
0.25%
1M
-9.62%
YTD
-3.19%
6M
-3.25%
1Y
19.93%
3Y*
27.16%
5Y*
15.73%
10Y*
10.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FTS.TO
Fortis Inc.		13.43%23.93%14.24%4.76%-7.87%21.81%0.04%22.71%2.74%15.29%
CGL.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)		-3.19%60.08%25.70%11.26%-1.07%-4.58%23.41%16.58%-3.19%11.68%

Correlation

The correlation between FTS.TO and CGL.TO is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

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

0.02

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

0.10

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

0.13

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

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2010

0.06

The correlation between FTS.TO and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (1 year) to 0.13 (5 years), 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.

Fortis Inc.

iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Often compared with FTS.TO:
FTS.TO vs. CU.TOFTS.TO vs. EMA.TOFTS.TO vs. T.TOFTS.TO vs. H.TOFTS.TO vs. VDY.TOFTS.TO vs. BIP-UN.TOFTS.TO vs. TRP.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

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FTS.TO
FTS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
FTS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
FTS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fortis Inc. (FTS.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.

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.

FTS.TOCGL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.01
0.78

+1.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.89
1.15

+1.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.16

+0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.33

0.87

+3.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.47

2.49

+7.98

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

The current FTS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is higher than the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTS.TO 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

FTS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTS.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.27%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -45.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTS.TO and CGL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FTS.TOCGL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.27%

-45.96%

+17.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.09%

-24.93%

+18.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.97%

-24.93%

+13.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.01%

-24.93%

+0.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.27%

-24.93%

-3.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-22.50%

+22.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.71%

-20.30%

+14.59%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.51%

8.66%

-6.15%

Volatility

FTS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fortis Inc. (FTS.TO) is 4.96%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a volatility of 7.67%. This indicates that FTS.TO 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

FTS.TOCGL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.96%

7.67%

-2.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.44%

24.08%

-13.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.12%

27.61%

-14.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.45%

18.54%

-4.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.86%

16.53%

+0.33%

Dividends

FTS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

FTS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.18%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

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%
FTS.TO
Fortis Inc.		3.18%3.48%3.99%4.19%4.01%3.36%3.73%3.39%3.79%3.52%3.68%3.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

FTS.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FTS.TO 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