GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCL.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO).

GLCL.TO and CGL-C.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLCL.TO is a passively managed fund by Global X that tracks the performance of the Mirae Asset North American Listed Gold Producers Index. It was launched on Apr 21, 2025. CGL-C.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Mar 31, 2011. Both GLCL.TO and CGL-C.TO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCL.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	6.10%	104.93%
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	11.78%	31.88%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCL.TO achieves a 6.10% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 11.78% return.

GLCL.TO

• 1D: 6.70%
• 1M: -23.28%
• YTD: 6.10%
• 6M: 24.42%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 1.62%
• 1M: -9.34%
• YTD: 11.78%
• 6M: 22.18%
• 1Y: 47.30%
• 3Y*: 34.56%
• 5Y*: 24.29%
• 10Y*: 14.61%

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

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCL.TO has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

GLCL.TO

Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF

CGL-C.TO

iShares Gold Bullion ETF

Return for Risk

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGL-C.TO

CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCL.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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLCL.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.95	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.69	0.64	+2.06

Correlation

The correlation between GLCL.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.71, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison

GLCL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.14%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	6.14%	4.34%
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

GLCL.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCL.TO drawdown since its inception was -35.08%, which is greater than CGL-C.TO's maximum drawdown of -33.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCL.TO and CGL-C.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCL.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.08%	-33.04%	-2.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-17.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.55%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.28%	-9.34%	-13.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.61%	-12.23%	+6.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.06%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GLCL.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.31%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	23.24%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	50.93%	26.18%	+24.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.93%	16.74%	+34.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.93%	15.50%	+35.43%