GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO
GLCC.TO (Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) and CNQE.TO (Harvest CNQ Enhanced High Income Shares ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. GLCC.TO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for CNQE.TO.
Performance
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLCC.TO achieves a -0.45% return, which is significantly lower than CNQE.TO's 39.35% return.
GLCC.TO
- 1D
- -2.75%
- 1M
- 1.61%
- YTD
- -0.45%
- 6M
- 4.96%
- 1Y
- 60.20%
- 3Y*
- 40.99%
- 5Y*
- 21.30%
- 10Y*
- 14.52%
CNQE.TO
- 1D
- 1.83%
- 1M
- 3.29%
- YTD
- 39.35%
- 6M
- 37.15%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF | -0.45% | 38.29% |
CNQE.TO Harvest CNQ Enhanced High Income Shares ETF | 39.35% | 13.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLCC.TO and CNQE.TO is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2025 | -0.23 |
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
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO — Risk / Return Rank
GLCC.TO
CNQE.TO
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - 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 Harvest CNQ Enhanced High Income Shares ETF (CNQE.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.
| GLCC.TO | CNQE.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.10 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.69 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GLCC.TO | CNQE.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.45 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.67 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.00 | 2.48 | -2.48 |
Drawdowns
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLCC.TO drawdown since its inception was -71.12%, which is greater than CNQE.TO's maximum drawdown of -18.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCC.TO and CNQE.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLCC.TO | CNQE.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -71.12% | -18.22% | -52.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -28.86% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.86% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.60% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -44.83% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.43% | -6.08% | -17.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -34.43% | -4.12% | -30.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.61% | — | — |
Volatility
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLCC.TO | CNQE.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.96% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 34.13% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 41.70% | 33.12% | +8.58% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.94% | 33.12% | -1.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.95% | 33.12% | -1.17% |
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLCC.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CNQE.TO's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
GLCC.TO vs. CNQE.TO - Dividend Comparison
GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.69%, less than CNQE.TO's 9.40% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQE.TO Harvest CNQ Enhanced High Income Shares ETF | 9.40% | 4.42% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF | 8.69% | 6.01% | 10.30% | 11.16% | 10.08% | 6.31% | 6.47% | 4.58% | 5.62% | 7.09% | 9.21% | 11.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GLCC.TO and CNQE.TO have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CNQE.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CNQE.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLCC.TO.
They also come from different issuers: Global X and Harvest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLCC.TO and 0.40% for CNQE.TO.
Find the right allocation for GLCC.TO and CNQE.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