PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) and Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO).

GLCC.TO and HUG.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLCC.TO is an actively managed fund by Global X. It was launched on Apr 11, 2011. HUG.TO is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER. It was launched on Jun 24, 2009.

Performance

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - 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 Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF		5.98%137.43%20.18%6.19%-1.80%-9.37%15.00%38.72%-0.38%7.33%
HUG.TO
Global X Gold ETF		7.30%57.93%24.13%11.48%-1.87%-5.30%19.82%15.86%-4.52%10.34%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCC.TO achieves a 5.98% return, which is significantly lower than HUG.TO's 7.30% return. Over the past 10 years, GLCC.TO has outperformed HUG.TO with an annualized return of 17.68%, while HUG.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.28% annualized return.

GLCC.TO

1D
5.95%
1M
-18.48%
YTD
5.98%
6M
20.90%
1Y
86.11%
3Y*
43.56%
5Y*
25.34%
10Y*
17.68%

HUG.TO

1D
3.60%
1M
-11.44%
YTD
7.30%
6M
18.79%
1Y
43.53%
3Y*
29.54%
5Y*
19.17%
10Y*
11.28%
*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.

Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF

Global X Gold ETF

Often compared with GLCC.TO:
GLCC.TO vs. AMAX.TOGLCC.TO vs. DXMO.TOGLCC.TO vs. BCCCGLCC.TO vs. GLDI.LGLCC.TO vs. WAF.AXGLCC.TO vs. IGLDGLCC.TO vs. 4GLD.DE
Often compared with HUG.TO:
HUG.TO vs. CGL.TOHUG.TO vs. CGL-C.TOHUG.TO vs. VALT.TOHUG.TO vs. XEQT.TOHUG.TO vs. CASH.TOHUG.TO vs. PHYS.TOHUG.TO vs. SVR-C.TO

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCC.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than HUG.TO's 0.54% expense ratio.

GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF
HUG.TO
Global X Gold ETF

Return for Risk

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO — 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: 9090
Overall Rank
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
HUG.TO
HUG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
HUG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HUG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
HUG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
HUG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
HUG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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. HUG.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 Global X Gold ETF (HUG.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.TOHUG.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.10

1.58

+0.52

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.39

2.02

+0.37

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.30

+0.06

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.04

2.36

+0.68

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.66

8.51

+3.15

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. HUG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is higher than the HUG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCC.TO and HUG.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

GLCC.TOHUG.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.10

1.58

+0.52

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

1.07

-0.26

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.56

0.69

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.00

0.46

-0.46

Correlation

The correlation between GLCC.TO and HUG.TO is 0.58, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Dividend Comparison

GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.21%, while HUG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF		6.21%6.01%10.30%11.16%10.08%6.31%6.47%4.58%5.62%7.09%9.21%11.63%
HUG.TO
Global X Gold ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCC.TO drawdown since its inception was -71.12%, which is greater than HUG.TO's maximum drawdown of -47.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCC.TO and HUG.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

GLCC.TOHUG.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-71.12%

-47.99%

-23.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.86%

-19.27%

-9.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.60%

-22.06%

-15.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.83%

-24.66%

-20.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.48%

-13.85%

-4.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-34.62%

-23.04%

-11.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.54%

5.35%

+2.19%

Volatility

GLCC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.09% compared to Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO) at 10.58%. This indicates that GLCC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HUG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

GLCC.TOHUG.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.09%

10.58%

+6.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

34.47%

24.01%

+10.46%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

41.29%

27.70%

+13.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.17%

17.97%

+13.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.75%

16.38%

+15.37%