PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KILO.TO achieves a -5.68% return, which is significantly higher than HGY.TO's -6.18% 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*

HGY.TO

1D
-1.77%
1M
-8.46%
YTD
-6.18%
6M
-9.09%
1Y
14.05%
3Y*
21.46%
5Y*
12.51%
10Y*
6.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
KILO.TO
Purpose Gold Bullion Fund
-5.68%60.17%25.97%12.15%-0.90%-4.72%-2.21%
HGY.TO
Global X Gold Yield ETF
-6.18%48.66%21.36%9.51%-3.64%-7.21%-3.52%

Correlation

The correlation between KILO.TO and HGY.TO is 0.97 - 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

0.97

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2020

0.89

The correlation between KILO.TO and HGY.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.97 - 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. HGY.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

KILO.TO
KILO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KILO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
KILO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
KILO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
KILO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
Martin Ratio Rank

HGY.TO
HGY.TO Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
HGY.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
HGY.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
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.

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.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.TOHGY.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.13

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.76

0.63

+0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.01

1.78

+0.23

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is comparable to the HGY.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KILO.TO and HGY.TO, 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...

Drawdowns

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KILO.TO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum HGY.TO drawdown of -48.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KILO.TO and HGY.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


KILO.TOHGY.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.90%

-48.61%

+23.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.90%

-22.37%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.90%

-22.37%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.90%

-22.37%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-24.51%

-21.67%

-2.84%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.79%

-30.64%

+23.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

9.44%

7.93%

+1.51%

Volatility

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) is 7.88%, while Global X Gold Yield ETF (HGY.TO) has a volatility of 9.48%. This indicates that KILO.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HGY.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


KILO.TOHGY.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.88%

9.48%

-1.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.72%

22.42%

+1.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.23%

24.87%

+2.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.13%

15.96%

+2.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.86%

15.64%

+2.22%

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

KILO.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than HGY.TO's 0.86% expense ratio.


Dividends

KILO.TO vs. HGY.TO - Dividend Comparison

KILO.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HGY.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.61%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HGY.TO
Global X Gold Yield ETF
6.61%4.92%5.32%6.10%3.72%2.93%2.86%2.09%2.33%2.31%2.69%3.07%
KILO.TO
Purpose Gold Bullion Fund
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.41%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.97, KILO.TO and HGY.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 0.86% for HGY.TO.

They also come from different issuers: Purpose Investments and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for KILO.TO and 0.86% for HGY.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for KILO.TO and HGY.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