HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HUG.TO (Global X Gold ETF) and ZCOM.NEO (BMO Broad Commodity ETF (CAD Units)) are both exchange-traded funds - HUG.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while ZCOM.NEO is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. Both are passively managed. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HUG.TO charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZCOM.NEO.

Performance

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO) and BMO Broad Commodity ETF (CAD Units) (ZCOM.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HUG.TO achieves a 1.43% return, which is significantly lower than ZCOM.NEO's 28.30% return.

HUG.TO

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: -1.86%
• YTD: 1.43%
• 6M: 3.69%
• 1Y: 27.81%
• 3Y*: 27.56%
• 5Y*: 15.83%
• 10Y*: 10.69%

ZCOM.NEO

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -1.07%
• YTD: 28.30%
• 6M: 27.89%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HUG.TO Global X Gold ETF	1.43%	4.41%
ZCOM.NEO BMO Broad Commodity ETF (CAD Units)	28.30%	2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between HUG.TO and ZCOM.NEO is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025	0.22

Return for Risk

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

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

HUG.TO

HUG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 28
HUG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
HUG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
HUG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 31
HUG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
HUG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO) and BMO Broad Commodity ETF (CAD Units) (ZCOM.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.

	HUG.TO	ZCOM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.45	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.47	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HUG.TO	ZCOM.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	2.76	-2.33

Drawdowns

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HUG.TO drawdown since its inception was -47.99%, which is greater than ZCOM.NEO's maximum drawdown of -5.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUG.TO and ZCOM.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HUG.TO	ZCOM.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.99%	-5.97%	-42.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.27%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.57%	-2.96%	-15.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.96%	-1.72%	-21.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.03%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	HUG.TO	ZCOM.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.89%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.75%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.49%	21.06%	+5.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.25%	21.06%	-2.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.41%	21.06%	-4.65%

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HUG.TO has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than ZCOM.NEO's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

HUG.TO vs. ZCOM.NEO - Dividend Comparison

HUG.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZCOM.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.74%.

Position	TTM	2025
HUG.TO Global X Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%
ZCOM.NEO BMO Broad Commodity ETF (CAD Units)	5.74%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HUG.TO and ZCOM.NEO in my portfolio?

HUG.TO and ZCOM.NEO have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HUG.TO or ZCOM.NEO?

On fees, ZCOM.NEO is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HUG.TO or ZCOM.NEO?

ZCOM.NEO is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for HUG.TO.

What is the main difference between HUG.TO and ZCOM.NEO?

HUG.TO is categorized as Gold, while ZCOM.NEO is Commodities. HUG.TO tracks Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while ZCOM.NEO tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. They also come from different issuers: Global X and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for HUG.TO and 0.30% for ZCOM.NEO.