GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
GGRO.TO (iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GGRO.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD). GGRO.TO is actively managed, while CGL-C.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GGRO.TO returned 11.34%/yr vs 21.21%/yr for CGL-C.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GGRO.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GGRO.TO achieves a 13.16% return, which is significantly higher than CGL-C.TO's 1.94% return.
GGRO.TO
- 1D
- 1.41%
- 1M
- 5.68%
- YTD
- 13.16%
- 6M
- 11.03%
- 1Y
- 25.16%
- 3Y*
- 18.97%
- 5Y*
- 11.34%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 2.56%
- 1M
- -3.33%
- YTD
- 1.94%
- 6M
- 1.69%
- 1Y
- 28.64%
- 3Y*
- 31.98%
- 5Y*
- 21.21%
- 10Y*
- 13.01%
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GGRO.TO iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio | 13.16% | 14.25% | 20.49% | 19.17% | -14.12% | 15.53% | 7.20% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 1.94% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | -6.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between GGRO.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2020 | 0.04 |
The correlation between GGRO.TO and CGL-C.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (all time) to 0.21 (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
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
GGRO.TO
CGL-C.TO
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.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.
| GGRO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.96 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.22 | +0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.26 | 1.30 | +1.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.00 | 3.69 | +9.31 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GGRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.12%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -30.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRO.TO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GGRO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.12% | -30.01% | +7.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.74% | -22.11% | +14.37% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.77% | -22.11% | +8.34% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.12% | -22.11% | -0.01% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -17.33% | +17.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.22% | -10.72% | +5.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.94% | 7.79% | -5.85% |
Volatility
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) is 4.56%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a volatility of 8.08%. This indicates that GGRO.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGL-C.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GGRO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.56% | 8.08% | -3.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.31% | 22.58% | -12.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.33% | 26.24% | -13.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.06% | 17.24% | -2.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.35% | 15.67% | +0.68% |
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
GGRO.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
GGRO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
GGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GGRO.TO iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio | 1.37% | 1.52% | 1.63% | 1.89% | 1.69% | 1.44% | 0.83% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GGRO.TO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GGRO.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GGRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
GGRO.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CGL-C.TO is Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GGRO.TO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for GGRO.TO and CGL-C.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