KILO.TO vs. ZGLH.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

KILO.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund) and ZGLH.TO (BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF) are both Gold funds. Both are actively managed. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. KILO.TO charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for ZGLH.TO.

Performance

KILO.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

KILO.TO

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: -9.01%
• YTD: -5.68%
• 6M: -9.56%
• 1Y: 18.91%
• 3Y*: 26.73%
• 5Y*: 16.78%
• 10Y*: —

ZGLH.TO

• 1D: -2.02%
• 1M: -8.92%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund	-13.86%
ZGLH.TO BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF	-14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between KILO.TO and ZGLH.TO is 0.98 - 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 20, 2026	0.98

Return for Risk

KILO.TO vs. ZGLH.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: 20
KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
KILO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
KILO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 22
KILO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
KILO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 18

ZGLH.TO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. ZGLH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) and BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF (ZGLH.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	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.05	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.01	—	—

Drawdowns

KILO.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KILO.TO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, roughly equal to the maximum ZGLH.TO drawdown of -25.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KILO.TO and ZGLH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	KILO.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-25.00%	+0.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.90%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.90%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.51%	-24.39%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.79%	-12.13%	+5.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.44%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	KILO.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.88%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.72%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.23%	34.89%	-7.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.13%	34.89%	-16.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.86%	34.89%	-17.03%

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

KILO.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than ZGLH.TO's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

KILO.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither KILO.TO nor ZGLH.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.41%
ZGLH.TO BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.98, KILO.TO and ZGLH.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.

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

On fees, ZGLH.TO is cheaper at 0.23% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

ZGLH.TO is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for KILO.TO.

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

They also come from different issuers: Purpose Investments and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for KILO.TO and 0.23% for ZGLH.TO.