PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

LUG.TO (Lundin Gold Inc.) is a stock, while CVD.TO (iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF) is High Yield Bonds fund tracking the FTSE Canada Convertible Bond Index. Over the past 10 years, LUG.TO returned 32.96%/yr vs 4.51%/yr for CVD.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) and iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF (CVD.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LUG.TO achieves a -26.55% return, which is significantly lower than CVD.TO's 3.34% return. Over the past 10 years, LUG.TO has outperformed CVD.TO with an annualized return of 32.96%, while CVD.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 4.51% annualized return.

LUG.TO

1D
0.42%
1M
-13.90%
YTD
-26.55%
6M
-23.60%
1Y
20.17%
3Y*
78.91%
5Y*
53.88%
10Y*
32.96%

CVD.TO

1D
-0.28%
1M
0.60%
YTD
3.34%
6M
0.88%
1Y
7.85%
3Y*
8.29%
5Y*
4.41%
10Y*
4.51%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LUG.TO
Lundin Gold Inc.		-26.55%291.22%91.60%29.55%30.60%-4.67%31.21%66.93%10.15%-13.88%
CVD.TO
iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF		3.34%7.09%12.68%3.64%-4.63%5.33%3.67%10.28%-2.68%4.06%

Correlation

The correlation between LUG.TO and CVD.TO is 0.03, 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

0.03

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

0.02

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

0.06

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2011

0.04

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Lundin Gold Inc.

iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF

Often compared with LUG.TO:
LUG.TO vs. AEMLUG.TO vs. EGOLUG.TO vs. MAGLUG.TO vs. KGCLUG.TO vs. CGAULUG.TO vs. NVDA.TOLUG.TO vs. KNT.TO
Often compared with CVD.TO:
CVD.TO vs. ZWC.TOCVD.TO vs. ICVTCVD.TO vs. XHY.TOCVD.TO vs. CGHY.TOCVD.TO vs. XHB.TOCVD.TO vs. XEQT.TOCVD.TO vs. XSB.TO

Return for Risk

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
LUG.TO
LUG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
LUG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LUG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
LUG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
LUG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
LUG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
CVD.TO
CVD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
CVD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CVD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
CVD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
CVD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
CVD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
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.

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) and iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF (CVD.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.

LUG.TOCVD.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.36
1.08

-0.72

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.84
1.52

-0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.11

1.23

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.58

1.99

-1.42

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.50

5.73

-4.23

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LUG.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.36, which is lower than the CVD.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LUG.TO and CVD.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

LUG.TOCVD.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.36

1.08

-0.72

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.17

0.47

+0.69

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.76

0.48

+0.29

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

0.46

-0.34

Drawdowns

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LUG.TO drawdown since its inception was -94.74%, which is greater than CVD.TO's maximum drawdown of -23.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LUG.TO and CVD.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

LUG.TOCVD.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-94.74%

-23.51%

-71.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.14%

-3.95%

-31.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.14%

-11.47%

-23.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.94%

-14.62%

-24.32%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.84%

-23.51%

-18.33%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-34.86%

-1.89%

-32.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-67.65%

-2.39%

-65.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.50%

1.37%

+12.13%

Volatility

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Volatility Comparison

Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) has a higher volatility of 17.75% compared to iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF (CVD.TO) at 1.02%. This indicates that LUG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CVD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

LUG.TOCVD.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.75%

1.02%

+16.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

41.85%

5.47%

+36.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

56.10%

7.32%

+48.78%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

46.53%

9.40%

+37.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

43.39%

9.50%

+33.89%

Dividends

LUG.TO vs. CVD.TO - Dividend Comparison

LUG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.30%, more than CVD.TO's 4.94% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CVD.TO
iShares Convertible Bond Index ETF		4.94%4.91%5.14%5.33%5.05%4.61%4.48%4.52%4.97%4.65%4.51%4.94%
LUG.TO
Lundin Gold Inc.		5.30%3.35%2.69%3.26%1.97%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

LUG.TO and CVD.TO have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LUG.TO and CVD.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