MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MNS.TO (Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Silver Reserves) and CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - MNS.TO is a Silver fund tracking the N/A (Physical Bullion), while CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MNS.TO returned 16.17%/yr vs 11.98%/yr for CGL.TO. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MNS.TO charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL.TO.

Performance

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Silver Reserves (MNS.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNS.TO achieves a -8.40% return, which is significantly lower than CGL.TO's 2.15% return. Over the past 10 years, MNS.TO has outperformed CGL.TO with an annualized return of 16.17%, while CGL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.98% annualized return.

MNS.TO

• 1D: -2.02%
• 1M: 1.76%
• YTD: -8.40%
• 6M: 21.27%
• 1Y: 101.71%
• 3Y*: 47.34%
• 5Y*: 23.26%
• 10Y*: 16.17%

CGL.TO

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: -1.87%
• YTD: 2.15%
• 6M: 4.29%
• 1Y: 29.45%
• 3Y*: 29.31%
• 5Y*: 16.83%
• 10Y*: 11.98%

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

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MNS.TO Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Silver Reserves	-8.40%	161.12%	41.73%	-5.85%	5.27%	-15.46%	45.70%	9.85%	-1.65%	-1.63%
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	2.15%	60.12%	25.67%	11.26%	-1.07%	-4.58%	23.41%	16.58%	-3.19%	11.68%

Correlation

The correlation between MNS.TO and CGL.TO is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2012	0.58

The correlation between MNS.TO and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (all time) to 0.69 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNS.TO

MNS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 48
MNS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
MNS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
MNS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 56
MNS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
MNS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CGL.TO

CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 29
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Silver Reserves (MNS.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.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.

	MNS.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	1.10	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.51	+0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.22	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	1.53	+1.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.94	3.75	+2.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is higher than the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNS.TO and CGL.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

	MNS.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.89	1.10	+0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.92	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	0.73	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.48	-0.19

Drawdowns

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNS.TO drawdown since its inception was -51.12%, which is greater than CGL.TO's maximum drawdown of -44.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNS.TO and CGL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNS.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.12%	-44.53%	-6.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-38.31%	-19.36%	-18.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-38.31%	-19.36%	-18.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.31%	-22.18%	-16.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.02%	-23.72%	-18.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.98%	-18.22%	-13.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.15%	-18.16%	-9.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.19%	7.88%	+9.31%

Volatility

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Silver Reserves (MNS.TO) has a higher volatility of 15.55% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 5.60%. This indicates that MNS.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MNS.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.55%	5.60%	+9.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.13%	23.18%	+28.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	54.03%	26.89%	+27.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.67%	18.33%	+16.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.05%	16.41%	+15.64%

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNS.TO has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

MNS.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither MNS.TO nor CGL.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MNS.TO and CGL.TO in my portfolio?

MNS.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MNS.TO or CGL.TO?

On fees, MNS.TO is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MNS.TO or CGL.TO?

MNS.TO is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.

What is the main difference between MNS.TO and CGL.TO?

MNS.TO is categorized as Silver, while CGL.TO is Precious Metals. MNS.TO tracks N/A (Physical Bullion), while CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion. They also come from different issuers: Royal Canadian Mint and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for MNS.TO and 0.55% for CGL.TO.