PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PFLS.TO (Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund) and GLCC.TO (Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PFLS.TO is a fund fund, while GLCC.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Global X. Over the past 5 years, PFLS.TO returned 10.63%/yr vs 21.30%/yr for GLCC.TO. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund (PFLS.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PFLS.TO achieves a 6.07% return, which is significantly higher than GLCC.TO's -0.45% return.

PFLS.TO

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 2.80%
• YTD: 6.07%
• 6M: 7.19%
• 1Y: 16.03%
• 3Y*: 13.92%
• 5Y*: 10.63%
• 10Y*: —

GLCC.TO

• 1D: -2.75%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: -0.45%
• 6M: 4.96%
• 1Y: 60.20%
• 3Y*: 40.99%
• 5Y*: 21.30%
• 10Y*: 14.52%

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

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PFLS.TO Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund	6.07%	13.69%	19.22%	6.68%	0.48%	18.51%	20.68%
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	-0.45%	137.43%	20.18%	6.19%	-1.80%	-9.37%	-13.27%

Correlation

The correlation between PFLS.TO and GLCC.TO is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2020	0.27

Over the past year, PFLS.TO and GLCC.TO have become more correlated (0.48) than their long-term average of 0.27, meaning their price movements have been converging.

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PFLS.TO	GLCC.TO
Financial Services	23.3%	-
Technology	16.6%	-
Basic Materials	11.9%	100.0%
Industrials	11.6%	-
Energy	9.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	-
Healthcare	5.2%	-
Communication Services	4.5%	-
Utilities	3.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	-
Real Estate	3.1%	-

Return for Risk

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

PFLS.TO

PFLS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 52
PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
PFLS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
PFLS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 53
PFLS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
PFLS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 56

GLCC.TO

GLCC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 39
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 40
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund (PFLS.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.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.

	PFLS.TO	GLCC.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	1.45	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	1.86	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.27	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.30	2.10	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.72	5.69	+4.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFLS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFLS.TO and GLCC.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

	PFLS.TO	GLCC.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77	1.45	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82	0.67	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.09	0.00	+1.09

Drawdowns

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFLS.TO drawdown since its inception was -11.82%, smaller than the maximum GLCC.TO drawdown of -71.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFLS.TO and GLCC.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFLS.TO	GLCC.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.82%	-71.12%	+59.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.98%	-28.86%	+21.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.40%	-28.86%	+19.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.82%	-37.60%	+25.78%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	-23.43%	+22.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.37%	-34.43%	+32.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	10.61%	-8.96%

Volatility

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund (PFLS.TO) is 2.52%, while Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a volatility of 14.96%. This indicates that PFLS.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLCC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PFLS.TO	GLCC.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.52%	14.96%	-12.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.29%	34.13%	-26.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.08%	41.70%	-32.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.05%	31.94%	-18.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.42%	31.95%	-18.53%

Dividends

PFLS.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Dividend Comparison

PFLS.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLCC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.69%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLCC.TO Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF	8.69%	6.01%	10.30%	11.16%	10.08%	6.31%	6.47%	4.58%	5.62%	7.09%	9.21%	11.63%
PFLS.TO Picton Mahoney Fortified Long Short Alternative Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PFLS.TO and GLCC.TO in my portfolio?

PFLS.TO and GLCC.TO have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.