PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HGGG.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

HGGG.TO vs. CGL-C.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO).

HGGG.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. HGGG.TO is a passively managed fund by Harvest that tracks the performance of the Solactive Global Gold Giants Index TR. It was launched on Jan 10, 2019. 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 HGGG.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

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

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
HGGG.TO
Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF		6.31%170.60%26.04%4.17%-4.68%-14.34%31.47%25.92%
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		10.00%55.55%37.41%10.13%6.11%-4.85%21.75%14.53%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HGGG.TO achieves a 6.31% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 10.00% return.

HGGG.TO

1D
8.03%
1M
-20.27%
YTD
6.31%
6M
25.64%
1Y
117.42%
3Y*
50.08%
5Y*
30.21%
10Y*
—

CGL-C.TO

1D
3.62%
1M
-9.28%
YTD
10.00%
6M
20.69%
1Y
43.80%
3Y*
33.85%
5Y*
23.89%
10Y*
14.43%
*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.

Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF

iShares Gold Bullion ETF

Often compared with HGGG.TO:
HGGG.TO vs. AMAX.TOHGGG.TO vs. HGY.TOHGGG.TO vs. ZGLH.TOHGGG.TO vs. CGXF.TOHGGG.TO vs. ZGD.TOHGGG.TO vs. HUG.TOHGGG.TO vs. CGL.TO
Often compared with CGL-C.TO:
CGL-C.TO vs. CGL.TOCGL-C.TO vs. MNT.TOCGL-C.TO vs. GLDCGL-C.TO vs. PHYS.TOCGL-C.TO vs. ZGLD.TOCGL-C.TO vs. ABX.TOCGL-C.TO vs. XMD.TO

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

HGGG.TO has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF
HGGG.TO
Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HGGG.TO
HGGG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
HGGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HGGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
HGGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
HGGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
HGGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO
CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.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.

HGGG.TOCGL-C.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.71

1.68

+1.03

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.98

2.14

+0.83

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.32

+0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.81

2.69

+1.12

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

14.18

9.29

+4.90

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HGGG.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HGGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is higher than the CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HGGG.TO and CGL-C.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

HGGG.TOCGL-C.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.71

1.68

+1.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.95

1.44

-0.49

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.94

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

0.63

+0.16

Correlation

The correlation between HGGG.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.48, 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

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

Neither HGGG.TO nor CGL-C.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

TTM2025202420232022202120202019
HGGG.TO
Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.54%2.65%0.54%
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

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

The maximum HGGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -51.54%, 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 HGGG.TO and CGL-C.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

HGGG.TOCGL-C.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.54%

-33.04%

-18.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-31.16%

-17.37%

-13.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.14%

-17.55%

-21.59%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-22.78%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-20.29%

-10.79%

-9.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.15%

-12.23%

-7.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.37%

5.03%

+3.34%

Volatility

HGGG.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison

Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.TO) has a higher volatility of 19.27% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) at 10.97%. This indicates that HGGG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL-C.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

HGGG.TOCGL-C.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

19.27%

10.97%

+8.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.89%

23.21%

+12.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.54%

26.21%

+17.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.91%

16.73%

+15.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.34%

15.49%

+16.85%