QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO
QDAY.NEO (Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QDAY.NEO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Hamilton Capital, while CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD). QDAY.NEO is actively managed, while CGL-C.TO is passively managed. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QDAY.NEO charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QDAY.NEO achieves a 30.27% return, which is significantly higher than CGL-C.TO's 1.94% return.
QDAY.NEO
- 1D
- 3.63%
- 1M
- 7.22%
- YTD
- 30.27%
- 6M
- 31.66%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 2.56%
- 1M
- -3.33%
- YTD
- 1.94%
- 6M
- 1.69%
- 1Y
- 28.64%
- 3Y*
- 31.98%
- 5Y*
- 21.21%
- 10Y*
- 13.01%
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
QDAY.NEO Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF | 30.27% | 14.84% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 1.94% | 28.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between QDAY.NEO and CGL-C.TO is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2025 | 0.20 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
QDAY.NEO
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CGL-C.TO
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF (QDAY.NEO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.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.
| QDAY.NEO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.22 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.30 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 3.69 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QDAY.NEO drawdown since its inception was -19.44%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -30.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDAY.NEO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QDAY.NEO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.44% | -30.01% | +10.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -22.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -22.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -22.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.97% | -17.33% | +16.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.23% | -10.72% | +5.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 7.79% | — |
Volatility
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QDAY.NEO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 8.08% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 22.58% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.37% | 26.24% | -1.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.37% | 17.24% | +7.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.37% | 15.67% | +8.70% |
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
QDAY.NEO has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
QDAY.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
QDAY.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.91%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QDAY.NEO Hamilton EnhancedTechnology DayMAX™ ETF | 14.91% | 8.78% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QDAY.NEO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CGL-C.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CGL-C.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for QDAY.NEO.
QDAY.NEO is categorized as Derivative Income, while CGL-C.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: Hamilton Capital and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for QDAY.NEO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for QDAY.NEO and CGL-C.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