KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO).

KILO-B.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. KILO-B.TO is an actively managed fund by Purpose Investments. It was launched on Oct 15, 2018. CGL-C.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Mar 31, 2011.

Performance

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged	9.94%	56.51%	37.76%	10.43%	6.38%	-4.67%	21.17%	12.88%	8.56%
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	10.00%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-4.85%	21.75%	11.98%	9.54%

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with KILO-B.TO having a 9.94% return and CGL-C.TO slightly higher at 10.00%.

KILO-B.TO

• 1D: 3.80%
• 1M: -9.42%
• YTD: 9.94%
• 6M: 21.41%
• 1Y: 44.69%
• 3Y*: 34.39%
• 5Y*: 24.48%
• 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)

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

KILO-B.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

CGL-C.TO

iShares Gold Bullion ETF

KILO-B.TO

Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged

Return for Risk

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

KILO-B.TO

KILO-B.TO Risk / Return Rank: 84
KILO-B.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
KILO-B.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
KILO-B.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 83
KILO-B.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
KILO-B.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CGL-C.TO

CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 85
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.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.

	KILO-B.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.68	+0.04
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	2.14	+0.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.32	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.73	2.69	+0.03
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.62	9.29	+0.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KILO-B.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KILO-B.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	KILO-B.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.73	1.68	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.48	1.44	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.94	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.30	0.63	+0.67

Correlation

The correlation between KILO-B.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.79, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KILO-B.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.69%
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KILO-B.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.54%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -33.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KILO-B.TO and CGL-C.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	KILO-B.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.54%	-33.04%	+10.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.41%	-17.37%	-0.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.41%	-17.55%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.76%	-10.79%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.59%	-12.23%	+4.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	5.03%	-0.10%

Volatility

KILO-B.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison

Purpose Gold Bullion Fund ETF Non-Currency Hedged (KILO-B.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) have volatilities of 11.07% and 10.97%, 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

	KILO-B.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.07%	10.97%	+0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.98%	23.21%	-0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.05%	26.21%	-0.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	16.73%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.98%	15.49%	+2.49%