GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GLCC.TO (Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) and 3199.HK (ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLCC.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Global X, while 3199.HK is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond. GLCC.TO is actively managed, while 3199.HK is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLCC.TO returned 13.64%/yr vs 3.55%/yr for 3199.HK. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLCC.TO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.62%/yr for 3199.HK.

Performance

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) and ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GLCC.TO is traded in CAD, while 3199.HK is traded in HKD. To make them comparable, the 3199.HK values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCC.TO achieves a -6.64% return, which is significantly lower than 3199.HK's 6.81% return. Over the past 10 years, GLCC.TO has outperformed 3199.HK with an annualized return of 13.64%, while 3199.HK has yielded a comparatively lower 3.55% annualized return.

GLCC.TO

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: -14.33%
• YTD: -6.64%
• 6M: 0.17%
• 1Y: 51.36%
• 3Y*: 38.67%
• 5Y*: 20.02%
• 10Y*: 13.64%

3199.HK

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 2.61%
• YTD: 6.81%
• 6M: 6.68%
• 1Y: 9.67%
• 3Y*: 6.85%
• 5Y*: 5.54%
• 10Y*: 3.55%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	-6.64%	137.43%	20.18%	6.19%	-1.80%	-9.38%	15.00%	38.71%	-0.38%	7.32%
3199.HK ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF	6.81%	0.11%	13.00%	-0.12%	-0.75%	6.99%	8.50%	-3.03%	8.80%	-1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between GLCC.TO and 3199.HK is 0.05, 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	0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2014	0.02

Return for Risk

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLCC.TO

GLCC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 37
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 40
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 34

3199.HK

3199.HK Risk / Return Rank: 64
3199.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
3199.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
3199.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 53
3199.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
3199.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) and ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK). 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.

	GLCC.TO	3199.HK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	1.62	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	2.30	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.29	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.79	3.68	-1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.69	11.72	-7.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is comparable to the 3199.HK Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCC.TO and 3199.HK, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLCC.TO	3199.HK	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.22	1.62	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	0.86	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.43	0.53	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.04	0.66	-0.61

Drawdowns

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCC.TO drawdown since its inception was -81.37%, which is greater than 3199.HK's maximum drawdown of -16.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCC.TO and 3199.HK.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCC.TO	3199.HK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.37%	-16.35%	-65.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.86%	-2.81%	-26.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.86%	-5.76%	-23.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.60%	-8.19%	-29.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.83%	-10.05%	-34.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.19%	0.00%	-28.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-53.18%	-4.75%	-48.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.99%	1.01%	+9.98%

Volatility

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Volatility Comparison

Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a higher volatility of 14.96% compared to ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF (3199.HK) at 1.51%. This indicates that GLCC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than 3199.HK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLCC.TO	3199.HK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.96%	1.51%	+13.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.07%	4.94%	+30.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.54%	6.38%	+36.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.16%	7.38%	+24.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.06%	7.82%	+24.24%

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCC.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than 3199.HK's 0.62% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLCC.TO vs. 3199.HK - Dividend Comparison

GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.27%, more than 3199.HK's 3.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
3199.HK ICBC CSOP FTSE Chinese Government and Policy Bank Bond Index ETF	3.31%	3.34%	3.43%	3.51%	3.65%	3.40%	3.29%	3.57%	3.62%	3.39%	3.56%	3.69%
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	9.27%	6.01%	10.30%	11.16%	10.08%	6.31%	6.47%	4.58%	5.62%	7.08%	8.75%	2.32%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLCC.TO and 3199.HK in my portfolio?

GLCC.TO and 3199.HK have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLCC.TO or 3199.HK?

On fees, 3199.HK is cheaper at 0.62% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLCC.TO or 3199.HK?

3199.HK is cheaper with a 0.62% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLCC.TO.

What is the main difference between GLCC.TO and 3199.HK?

GLCC.TO is categorized as Derivative Income, while 3199.HK is Emerging Markets Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Global X and CSOP. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLCC.TO and 0.62% for 3199.HK.