PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGPM.NEO achieves a 2.68% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 4.95% return.


RGPM.NEO

1D
1.32%
1M
2.09%
YTD
2.68%
6M
9.50%
1Y
62.65%
3Y*
45.86%
5Y*
10Y*

CGL-C.TO

1D
0.54%
1M
0.13%
YTD
4.95%
6M
5.44%
1Y
33.77%
3Y*
32.37%
5Y*
21.43%
10Y*
13.90%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
RGPM.NEO
RBC Global Precious Metals Fund
2.68%143.89%36.75%-3.95%
CGL-C.TO
iShares Gold Bullion ETF
4.95%55.55%37.41%7.88%

Correlation

The correlation between RGPM.NEO and CGL-C.TO is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023

0.50

Over the past year, RGPM.NEO and CGL-C.TO have become more correlated (0.74) than their long-term average of 0.49, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

RGPM.NEO
RGPM.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

CGL-C.TO
CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
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.

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.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.


RGPM.NEOCGL-C.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.07

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.27

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.14

1.95

+0.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.76

4.76

+1.00

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGPM.NEO and CGL-C.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


RGPM.NEOCGL-C.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.46

1.34

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.27

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.36

0.60

+0.76

Drawdowns

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown since its inception was -29.46%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -33.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGPM.NEO and CGL-C.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RGPM.NEOCGL-C.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.46%

-33.04%

+3.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-29.46%

-17.37%

-12.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.46%

-17.37%

-12.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.85%

-14.88%

-7.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.39%

-12.24%

+3.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.91%

7.12%

+3.79%

Volatility

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a higher volatility of 16.12% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) at 5.29%. This indicates that RGPM.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL-C.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RGPM.NEOCGL-C.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

16.12%

5.29%

+10.83%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.57%

21.55%

+14.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.99%

25.34%

+17.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

32.71%

16.97%

+15.74%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.71%

15.56%

+17.15%

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RGPM.NEO has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither RGPM.NEO nor CGL-C.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


RGPM.NEO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.74, 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 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: RBC Global Asset Management. and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for RGPM.NEO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RGPM.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