PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HGY.TO (Global X Gold Yield ETF) and EACC.NEO (Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HGY.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by Global X, while EACC.NEO is a Derivative Income fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Index. HGY.TO is actively managed, while EACC.NEO is passively managed. Over the past year, HGY.TO returned 23.98% vs 19.76% for EACC.NEO. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HGY.TO charges 0.86%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EACC.NEO.

Performance

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) and Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF (EACC.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HGY.TO achieves a 1.16% return, which is significantly lower than EACC.NEO's 7.82% return.

HGY.TO

1D
-0.83%
1M
-1.36%
YTD
1.16%
6M
3.23%
1Y
23.98%
3Y*
24.16%
5Y*
13.84%
10Y*
9.42%

EACC.NEO

1D
-0.48%
1M
6.14%
YTD
7.82%
6M
8.11%
1Y
19.76%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
HGY.TO
Global X Gold Yield ETF		1.16%48.66%7.28%
EACC.NEO
Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF		7.82%18.86%0.72%

Correlation

The correlation between HGY.TO and EACC.NEO is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2024

0.18

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Global X Gold Yield ETF

Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF

Often compared with HGY.TO:
HGY.TO vs. XEG.TOHGY.TO vs. HUG.TOHGY.TO vs. HGGG.TOHGY.TO vs. VALT.TOHGY.TO vs. GC=FHGY.TO vs. AMAX.TOHGY.TO vs. XGD.TO
Often compared with EACC.NEO:
EACC.NEO vs. CNQE.TOEACC.NEO vs. ZWE.TOEACC.NEO vs. EMCL.NEOEACC.NEO vs. NXF.TOEACC.NEO vs. AVGY.TOEACC.NEO vs. JEPQ.TOEACC.NEO vs. TILV.TO

Return for Risk

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HGY.TO
HGY.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
HGY.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
EACC.NEO
EACC.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
EACC.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EACC.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
EACC.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
EACC.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
EACC.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
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.

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) and Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF (EACC.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.

HGY.TOEACC.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.03
1.33

-0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.42
1.80

-0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.27

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.38

1.76

-0.38

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.70

6.04

-2.34

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

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HGY.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is comparable to the EACC.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HGY.TO and EACC.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

HGY.TOEACC.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.03

1.33

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.07

0.89

-0.82

Drawdowns

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HGY.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.53%, which is greater than EACC.NEO's maximum drawdown of -13.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HGY.TO and EACC.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HGY.TOEACC.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.53%

-13.35%

-26.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.47%

-11.30%

-6.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.47%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.32%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.31%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.54%

-0.48%

-15.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.79%

-2.09%

-15.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.50%

3.28%

+3.22%

Volatility

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.22% compared to Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF (EACC.NEO) at 4.43%. This indicates that HGY.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EACC.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HGY.TOEACC.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.22%

4.43%

+2.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.71%

12.76%

+7.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.45%

14.96%

+8.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.57%

15.05%

+0.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.45%

15.05%

+0.40%

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HGY.TO has a 0.86% expense ratio, which is higher than EACC.NEO's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

HGY.TO vs. EACC.NEO - Dividend Comparison

HGY.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.13%, less than EACC.NEO's 7.46% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EACC.NEO
Global X MSCI EAFE Covered Call ETF		7.46%7.55%5.12%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HGY.TO
Global X Gold Yield ETF		6.13%4.92%5.32%6.10%6.42%5.87%5.72%4.19%4.66%4.63%5.37%6.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

HGY.TO and EACC.NEO have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EACC.NEO is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EACC.NEO is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for HGY.TO.

HGY.TO is categorized as Gold, while EACC.NEO is Derivative Income. Their fees differ too: 0.86% for HGY.TO and 0.49% for EACC.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HGY.TO and EACC.NEO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer