GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO
GBUL.TO (Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF) and KILO.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund) are both Gold funds. GBUL.TO is passively managed, while KILO.TO is actively managed. GBUL.TO charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for KILO.TO.
Performance
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GBUL.TO
- 1D
- —
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
KILO.TO
- 1D
- 0.76%
- 1M
- -4.70%
- YTD
- 2.92%
- 6M
- 5.09%
- 1Y
- 30.49%
- 3Y*
- 29.44%
- 5Y*
- 17.57%
- 10Y*
- —
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
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO — Risk / Return Rank
GBUL.TO
KILO.TO
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.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 (KILO.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.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GBUL.TO | KILO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 1.13 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.99 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | — | 1.02 | — |
Drawdowns
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO - Drawdown Comparison
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GBUL.TO | KILO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | — | -22.67% | — |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -19.62% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -19.62% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -21.31% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | — | -17.63% | — |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | — | -7.21% | — |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 8.01% | — |
Volatility
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GBUL.TO | KILO.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.24% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 22.51% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 26.34% | — |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | — | 17.92% | — |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | — | 18.08% | — |
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
GBUL.TO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than KILO.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.
Dividends
GBUL.TO vs. KILO.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither GBUL.TO nor KILO.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GBUL.TO Ninepoint Gold Bullion Fund Series ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.41% |
Frequently Asked Questions
On fees, KILO.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KILO.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.TO.
Find the right allocation for GBUL.TO and KILO.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