HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO
HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) and CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - HUC.TO is a Commodities fund tracking the Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO returned 8.13%/yr vs 12.09%/yr for CGL.TO. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HUC.TO charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL.TO.
Performance
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HUC.TO achieves a 42.05% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's 2.98% return. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO has underperformed CGL.TO with an annualized return of 8.13%, while CGL.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 12.09% annualized return.
HUC.TO
- 1D
- -2.03%
- 1M
- -1.85%
- YTD
- 42.05%
- 6M
- 37.99%
- 1Y
- 37.42%
- 3Y*
- 11.54%
- 5Y*
- 12.86%
- 10Y*
- 8.13%
CGL.TO
- 1D
- 0.80%
- 1M
- -1.89%
- YTD
- 2.98%
- 6M
- 4.94%
- 1Y
- 29.90%
- 3Y*
- 29.26%
- 5Y*
- 17.02%
- 10Y*
- 12.09%
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HUC.TO Global X Crude Oil ETF | 42.05% | -13.63% | 7.23% | -2.89% | 26.25% | 57.81% | -21.10% | 19.75% | -11.68% | -3.47% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.98% | 60.12% | 25.67% | 11.26% | -1.07% | -4.58% | 23.41% | 16.58% | -3.19% | 11.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between HUC.TO and CGL.TO is -0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2009 | 0.11 |
The correlation between HUC.TO and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.03 (1 year) to 0.11 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
HUC.TO
CGL.TO
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.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.
| HUC.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.44 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.22 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.32 | 1.55 | +0.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.59 | 3.77 | +0.82 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| HUC.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.48 | 1.12 | +0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.46 | 0.93 | -0.47 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 | 0.74 | -0.46 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.13 | 0.48 | -0.35 |
Drawdowns
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HUC.TO drawdown since its inception was -76.99%, which is greater than CGL.TO's maximum drawdown of -44.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUC.TO and CGL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HUC.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -76.99% | -44.53% | -32.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.20% | -19.36% | +3.16% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.83% | -19.36% | -4.47% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.83% | -22.18% | -8.65% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.56% | -23.72% | -37.84% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.77% | -17.55% | +12.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -34.60% | -18.16% | -16.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.18% | 7.95% | +0.23% |
Volatility
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.36% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 5.60%. This indicates that HUC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HUC.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.36% | 5.60% | +5.76% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.24% | 23.18% | -1.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.42% | 26.88% | -1.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.87% | 18.33% | +9.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 29.04% | 16.41% | +12.63% |
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
HUC.TO has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
HUC.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither HUC.TO nor CGL.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
HUC.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CGL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for HUC.TO.
HUC.TO is categorized as Commodities, while CGL.TO is Precious Metals. HUC.TO tracks Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for HUC.TO and 0.55% for CGL.TO.
Find the right allocation for HUC.TO and CGL.TO
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