KILO.TO vs. XUS.TO

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

KILO.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund) and XUS.TO (iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KILO.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by Purpose Investments, while XUS.TO is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. KILO.TO is actively managed, while XUS.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, KILO.TO returned 17.57%/yr vs 17.37%/yr for XUS.TO. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. KILO.TO charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for XUS.TO.

Performance

KILO.TO vs. XUS.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF (XUS.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KILO.TO achieves a 2.92% return, which is significantly lower than XUS.TO's 10.11% return.

KILO.TO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -4.70%
• YTD: 2.92%
• 6M: 5.09%
• 1Y: 30.49%
• 3Y*: 29.44%
• 5Y*: 17.57%
• 10Y*: —

XUS.TO

• 1D: -2.34%
• 1M: 2.74%
• YTD: 10.11%
• 6M: 8.96%
• 1Y: 28.23%
• 3Y*: 23.51%
• 5Y*: 17.37%
• 10Y*: 17.36%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund	2.92%	60.17%	25.97%	12.15%	-0.90%	-4.72%	22.91%	18.86%	2.75%
XUS.TO iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF	10.11%	12.19%	35.81%	24.87%	-11.33%	28.81%	17.22%	27.24%	-2.92%

Correlation

The correlation between KILO.TO and XUS.TO is 0.06, 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	0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	-0.04

The correlation between KILO.TO and XUS.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (all time) to 0.06 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

KILO.TO vs. XUS.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: 31
KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
KILO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
KILO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
KILO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
KILO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

XUS.TO

XUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 76
XUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
XUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
XUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 80
XUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
XUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. XUS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF (XUS.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.TO	XUS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	2.41	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	3.23	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.45	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	3.29	-1.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.72	12.44	-8.73
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.TO vs. XUS.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the XUS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KILO.TO and XUS.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	KILO.TO	XUS.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	2.41	-1.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99	1.16	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	1.06	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.02	1.16	-0.14

Drawdowns

KILO.TO vs. XUS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KILO.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.67%, smaller than the maximum XUS.TO drawdown of -27.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KILO.TO and XUS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	KILO.TO	XUS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.67%	-27.24%	+4.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.62%	-8.63%	-10.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.62%	-18.96%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.31%	-21.29%	-0.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-27.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.63%	-2.34%	-15.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.21%	-3.25%	-3.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.01%	2.27%	+5.74%

Volatility

KILO.TO vs. XUS.TO - Volatility Comparison

Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) has a higher volatility of 5.24% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF (XUS.TO) at 3.90%. This indicates that KILO.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XUS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KILO.TO	XUS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.24%	3.90%	+1.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.51%	9.02%	+13.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.34%	11.82%	+14.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.92%	15.02%	+2.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	16.52%	+1.56%

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

KILO.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than XUS.TO's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

KILO.TO vs. XUS.TO - Dividend Comparison

KILO.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XUS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XUS.TO iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF	1.14%	1.26%	1.45%	2.43%	2.76%	1.99%	2.70%	4.05%	3.55%	2.96%	3.32%	3.41%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KILO.TO and XUS.TO in my portfolio?

KILO.TO and XUS.TO have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, KILO.TO or XUS.TO?

On fees, XUS.TO is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, KILO.TO or XUS.TO?

XUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for KILO.TO.

What is the main difference between KILO.TO and XUS.TO?

KILO.TO is categorized as Gold, while XUS.TO is S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: Purpose Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for KILO.TO and 0.09% for XUS.TO.