GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

GLCC.TO (Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) and ZPH.TO (BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF) are both Derivative Income funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLCC.TO returned 20.11%/yr vs 5.66%/yr for ZPH.TO. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLCC.TO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ZPH.TO.

Performance

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.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 BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF (ZPH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCC.TO achieves a -10.57% return, which is significantly lower than ZPH.TO's 1.76% return.

GLCC.TO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -5.71%
• 6M: -19.82%
• YTD: -10.57%
• 1Y: 41.43%
• 3Y*: 36.35%
• 5Y*: 20.11%
• 10Y*: 11.77%

ZPH.TO

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.90%
• YTD: 1.76%
• 1Y: 7.40%
• 3Y*: 7.80%
• 5Y*: 5.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	-10.57%	137.43%	20.18%	6.19%	-1.80%	-9.38%	15.00%	38.71%	-0.38%	-8.17%
ZPH.TO BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF	1.76%	9.47%	4.21%	22.61%	-10.37%	13.57%	2.43%	3.22%	-6.77%	3.90%

Correlation

The correlation between GLCC.TO and ZPH.TO is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2017	0.10

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLCC.TO	ZPH.TO
Basic Materials	100.0%	-
Communication Services	-	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.3%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	17.2%
Healthcare	-	17.1%
Industrials	-	6.8%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	42.2%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.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: 31
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 34
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

ZPH.TO

ZPH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 37
ZPH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
ZPH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
ZPH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 39
ZPH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
ZPH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. ZPH.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 BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF (ZPH.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.

	GLCC.TO	ZPH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	1.14	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.39	1.67	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.21	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.26	1.22	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.94	4.62	-1.68

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is comparable to the ZPH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCC.TO and ZPH.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCC.TO drawdown since its inception was -81.37%, which is greater than ZPH.TO's maximum drawdown of -33.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCC.TO and ZPH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCC.TO	ZPH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.37%	-33.38%	-47.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.03%	-6.07%	-26.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.03%	-11.83%	-21.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.60%	-18.38%	-19.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.83%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.21%	-0.40%	-30.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-53.01%	-4.23%	-48.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.12%	1.60%	+12.52%

Volatility

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a higher volatility of 12.65% compared to BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF (ZPH.TO) at 2.50%. This indicates that GLCC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZPH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLCC.TO	ZPH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.65%	2.50%	+10.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.98%	5.61%	+31.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.40%	6.53%	+37.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.68%	11.18%	+21.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.33%	12.60%	+19.73%

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

GLCC.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ZPH.TO's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLCC.TO vs. ZPH.TO - Dividend Comparison

GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.34%, which matches ZPH.TO's 10.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	10.34%	6.01%	10.30%	11.16%	10.08%	6.31%	6.47%	4.58%	5.62%	7.08%	8.75%	2.32%
ZPH.TO BMO US Put Write Hedged to CAD ETF	10.41%	10.06%	9.95%	8.18%	8.83%	7.27%	7.67%	7.26%	6.98%	5.94%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

GLCC.TO and ZPH.TO have a correlation of 0.18, 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 ZPH.TO?

On fees, ZPH.TO is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLCC.TO or ZPH.TO?

ZPH.TO is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLCC.TO.

What is the main difference between GLCC.TO and ZPH.TO?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for GLCC.TO and 0.65% for ZPH.TO.