GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCL.TO) and Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO).

GLCL.TO and KILO-B.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. KILO-B.TO is an actively managed fund by Purpose Investments. It was launched on Oct 15, 2018.

Performance

GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.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 Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	12.45%	104.93%
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged	11.54%	32.45%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCL.TO achieves a 12.45% return, which is significantly higher than KILO-B.TO's 11.54% return.

GLCL.TO

• 1D: 4.86%
• 1M: -18.40%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 6M: 29.74%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KILO-B.TO

• 1D: 1.45%
• 1M: -9.47%
• YTD: 11.54%
• 6M: 22.50%
• 1Y: 47.79%
• 3Y*: 35.04%
• 5Y*: 24.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCL.TO has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than KILO-B.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.

GLCL.TO

Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF

KILO-B.TO

Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged

Return for Risk

GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

KILO-B.TO

KILO-B.TO Risk / Return Rank: 83
KILO-B.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
KILO-B.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
KILO-B.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
KILO-B.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
KILO-B.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. KILO-B.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 Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.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	KILO-B.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.97	1.31	+1.66

Correlation

The correlation between GLCL.TO and KILO-B.TO is 0.73, 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. KILO-B.TO - Dividend Comparison

GLCL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.80%, while KILO-B.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GLCL.TO Global X Enhanced Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	6.80%	4.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.69%

Drawdowns

GLCL.TO vs. KILO-B.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCL.TO drawdown since its inception was -35.08%, which is greater than KILO-B.TO's maximum drawdown of -22.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCL.TO and KILO-B.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCL.TO	KILO-B.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.08%	-22.54%	-12.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-17.41%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.69%	-9.47%	-9.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.66%	-7.59%	+1.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.96%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GLCL.TO	KILO-B.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.32%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	23.01%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.20%	26.03%	+25.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	51.20%	16.61%	+34.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	51.20%	17.98%	+33.22%