KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
KILO.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both Gold funds. KILO.TO is actively managed, while CGL-C.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KILO.TO returned 16.78%/yr vs 21.01%/yr for CGL-C.TO. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KILO.TO charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KILO.TO achieves a -5.68% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's -1.35% return.
KILO.TO
- 1D
- -1.81%
- 1M
- -9.01%
- YTD
- -5.68%
- 6M
- -9.56%
- 1Y
- 18.91%
- 3Y*
- 26.73%
- 5Y*
- 16.78%
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- -1.43%
- 1M
- -6.24%
- YTD
- -1.35%
- 6M
- -5.54%
- 1Y
- 25.28%
- 3Y*
- 31.35%
- 5Y*
- 21.01%
- 10Y*
- 12.35%
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund | -5.68% | 60.17% | 25.97% | 12.15% | -0.90% | -4.72% | -2.21% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -1.35% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | -5.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between KILO.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2020 | 0.86 |
The correlation between KILO.TO and CGL-C.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
KILO.TO
CGL-C.TO
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.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.
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.
| KILO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.20 | -0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.76 | 1.15 | -0.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.01 | 3.06 | -1.05 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KILO.TO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -30.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KILO.TO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KILO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.90% | -30.01% | +5.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.90% | -22.11% | -2.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.90% | -22.11% | -2.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.90% | -22.11% | -2.79% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.51% | -20.00% | -4.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.79% | -10.73% | +3.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 9.44% | 8.29% | +1.15% |
Volatility
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) have volatilities of 7.88% and 7.89%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KILO.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.88% | 7.89% | -0.01% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.72% | 22.73% | +0.99% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.23% | 26.30% | +0.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.13% | 17.24% | +0.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.86% | 15.55% | +2.31% |
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
KILO.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
KILO.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither KILO.TO nor CGL-C.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.41% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.95, KILO.TO and CGL-C.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, KILO.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KILO.TO is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
They also come from different issuers: Purpose Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for KILO.TO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for KILO.TO and CGL-C.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