HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

HGGG.TO (Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF) and RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - HGGG.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Solactive Global Gold Giants Index TR, while RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management.. HGGG.TO is passively managed, while RGPM.NEO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HGGG.TO returned 48.40%/yr vs 44.35%/yr for RGPM.NEO. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HGGG.TO charges 0.40%/yr vs 1.02%/yr for RGPM.NEO.

Performance

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - 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 RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HGGG.TO achieves a -7.80% return, which is significantly lower than RGPM.NEO's -5.87% return.

HGGG.TO

• 1D: -3.72%
• 1M: -4.70%
• YTD: -7.80%
• 6M: -11.38%
• 1Y: 62.40%
• 3Y*: 48.40%
• 5Y*: 24.99%
• 10Y*: —

RGPM.NEO

• 1D: -3.98%
• 1M: -6.76%
• YTD: -5.87%
• 6M: -9.09%
• 1Y: 49.10%
• 3Y*: 44.35%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HGGG.TO Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF	-7.80%	170.60%	26.04%	2.95%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	-5.87%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%

Correlation

The correlation between HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2023	0.56

Over the past year, HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO have become more correlated (0.87) than their long-term average of 0.56, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO — 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: 38
HGGG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
HGGG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
HGGG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
HGGG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
HGGG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

RGPM.NEO

RGPM.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 32
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. RGPM.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.TO) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO). 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.

	HGGG.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	1.08	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	1.52	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.22	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.73	1.47	+0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.52	3.94	+0.58

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HGGG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is comparable to the RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO, 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

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HGGG.TO drawdown since its inception was -52.29%, which is greater than RGPM.NEO's maximum drawdown of -33.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HGGG.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.29%	-33.65%	-18.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.32%	-33.65%	-2.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.32%	-33.65%	-2.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.86%	-29.27%	-1.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.53%	-8.70%	-11.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.85%	12.55%	+1.30%

Volatility

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Volatility Comparison

Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF (HGGG.TO) and RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) have volatilities of 16.65% and 17.13%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HGGG.TO	RGPM.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.65%	17.13%	-0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.56%	38.51%	-0.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	45.86%	45.73%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.45%	33.65%	-0.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.23%	33.65%	-0.42%

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HGGG.TO has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than RGPM.NEO's 1.02% expense ratio.

Dividends

HGGG.TO vs. RGPM.NEO - Dividend Comparison

Neither HGGG.TO nor RGPM.NEO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
HGGG.TO Harvest Global Gold Giants Index ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.65%	0.54%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO in my portfolio?

HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HGGG.TO or RGPM.NEO?

On fees, HGGG.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HGGG.TO or RGPM.NEO?

HGGG.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

What is the main difference between HGGG.TO and RGPM.NEO?

HGGG.TO is categorized as Gold, while RGPM.NEO is Precious Metals. They also come from different issuers: Harvest and RBC Global Asset Management.. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for HGGG.TO and 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.