PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

GBUL.TO (Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF) and KILO-B.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged) are both Gold funds. GBUL.TO is passively managed, while KILO-B.TO is actively managed. GBUL.TO charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for KILO-B.TO.

Performance

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF (GBUL.TO) and Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

GBUL.TO

1D
—
1M
—
YTD
—
6M
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

KILO-B.TO

1D
—
1M
—
YTD
—
6M
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*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.

Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF

Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged

Often compared with GBUL.TO:
GBUL.TO vs. ZGLD.TOGBUL.TO vs. AMAX.TOGBUL.TO vs. CGL.TOGBUL.TO vs. CGXF.TOGBUL.TO vs. ECHI.TOGBUL.TO vs. GBSL.TOGBUL.TO vs. GLCC.TO
Often compared with KILO-B.TO:
KILO-B.TO vs. ZGLD.TOKILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TOKILO-B.TO vs. BTCY.TOKILO-B.TO vs. VALT.TOKILO-B.TO vs. ZGLH.TOKILO-B.TO vs. AGCC.TOKILO-B.TO vs. KILO.TO

Return for Risk

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF (GBUL.TO) and Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Drawdown Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBUL.TO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than KILO-B.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

GBUL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither GBUL.TO nor KILO-B.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

On fees, KILO-B.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

KILO-B.TO is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for GBUL.TO.

They also come from different issuers: Ninepoint and Purpose Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for GBUL.TO and 0.28% for KILO-B.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GBUL.TO and KILO-B.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