GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLCL.TO (Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) and CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) are both Gold funds. GLCL.TO is passively managed, while CGXF.TO is actively managed. Over the past year, GLCL.TO returned 75.90% vs 44.73% for CGXF.TO. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLCL.TO charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for CGXF.TO.

Performance

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.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 CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GLCL.TO having a -2.04% return and CGXF.TO slightly lower at -2.14%.

GLCL.TO

• 1D: -2.87%
• 1M: 2.09%
• YTD: -2.04%
• 6M: 4.37%
• 1Y: 75.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CGXF.TO

• 1D: -2.68%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: -2.14%
• 6M: 2.55%
• 1Y: 44.73%
• 3Y*: 30.89%
• 5Y*: 17.02%
• 10Y*: 10.53%

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

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	-2.04%	104.93%
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	-2.14%	59.82%

Correlation

The correlation between GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2025	0.95

The correlation between GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLCL.TO

GLCL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 41
GLCL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GLCL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
GLCL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 44
GLCL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
GLCL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CGXF.TO

CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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. CGXF.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 CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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.

	GLCL.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.13	+0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	1.57	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.22	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	1.64	+0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.74	4.17	+1.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is higher than the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCL.TO and CGXF.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLCL.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.49	1.13	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.77	0.05	+1.72

Drawdowns

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCL.TO drawdown since its inception was -35.08%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCL.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.08%	-88.66%	+53.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.08%	-27.39%	-7.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.16%	-24.36%	-4.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.45%	-30.71%	+22.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.32%	10.76%	+2.56%

Volatility

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCL.TO) has a higher volatility of 18.24% compared to CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) at 14.76%. This indicates that GLCL.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLCL.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.24%	14.76%	+3.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.38%	32.10%	+10.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.33%	39.82%	+11.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	51.55%	30.85%	+20.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	51.55%	30.30%	+21.25%

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCL.TO has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than CGXF.TO's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLCL.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

GLCL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.10%, less than CGXF.TO's 12.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	12.61%	7.43%	8.09%	8.92%	8.54%	8.59%	11.01%	6.69%	7.97%	6.99%	10.68%	11.75%
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	10.10%	4.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, GLCL.TO or CGXF.TO?

On fees, GLCL.TO is cheaper at 0.85% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLCL.TO or CGXF.TO?

GLCL.TO is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

What is the main difference between GLCL.TO and CGXF.TO?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for GLCL.TO and 1.08% for CGXF.TO.