MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MNT.TO (Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves) and GLDX.TO (Global X Gold Producers Index ETF) are both Gold funds. Over the past year, MNT.TO returned 18.65% vs 58.70% for GLDX.TO. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.

Performance

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.TO) and Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNT.TO achieves a -6.93% return, which is significantly higher than GLDX.TO's -7.62% return.

MNT.TO

• 1D: -1.48%
• 1M: -6.99%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 6M: -10.28%
• 1Y: 18.65%
• 3Y*: 31.47%
• 5Y*: 21.45%
• 10Y*: 12.39%

GLDX.TO

• 1D: -3.64%
• 1M: -6.73%
• YTD: -7.62%
• 6M: -12.30%
• 1Y: 58.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MNT.TO Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves	-6.93%	61.23%	0.85%
GLDX.TO Global X Gold Producers Index ETF	-7.62%	178.05%	-10.27%

Correlation

The correlation between MNT.TO and GLDX.TO is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2024	0.65

The correlation between MNT.TO and GLDX.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNT.TO

MNT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 18
MNT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
MNT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
MNT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 21
MNT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
MNT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 17

GLDX.TO

GLDX.TO Risk / Return Rank: 35
GLDX.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
GLDX.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
GLDX.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 37
GLDX.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
GLDX.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.TO) and Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.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.

	MNT.TO	GLDX.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	1.22	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	1.67	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.23	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	1.67	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.69	4.38	-2.69

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.61, which is lower than the GLDX.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNT.TO and GLDX.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.

Drawdowns

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNT.TO drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, roughly equal to the maximum GLDX.TO drawdown of -35.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNT.TO and GLDX.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNT.TO	GLDX.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.79%	-35.22%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.55%	-35.22%	+6.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.83%	-30.84%	+5.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.87%	-7.32%	-8.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.06%	13.47%	-2.41%

Volatility

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves (MNT.TO) is 8.23%, while Global X Gold Producers Index ETF (GLDX.TO) has a volatility of 16.57%. This indicates that MNT.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLDX.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MNT.TO	GLDX.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.23%	16.57%	-8.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.05%	38.70%	-12.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.85%	48.28%	-17.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.47%	44.49%	-24.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.60%	44.49%	-24.89%

Dividends

MNT.TO vs. GLDX.TO - Dividend Comparison

MNT.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLDX.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
GLDX.TO Global X Gold Producers Index ETF	1.05%	0.97%	0.08%
MNT.TO Royal Canadian Mint - Canadian Gold Reserves	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MNT.TO and GLDX.TO in my portfolio?

MNT.TO and GLDX.TO have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.