RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) and CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management., while CGL.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. RGPM.NEO is actively managed, while CGL.TO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RGPM.NEO returned 45.86%/yr vs 29.26%/yr for CGL.TO. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RGPM.NEO charges 1.02%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL.TO.

Performance

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.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 (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGPM.NEO achieves a 2.68% return, which is significantly lower than CGL.TO's 2.98% return.

RGPM.NEO

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

CGL.TO

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -1.89%
• YTD: 2.98%
• 6M: 4.94%
• 1Y: 29.90%
• 3Y*: 29.26%
• 5Y*: 17.02%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	2.68%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	2.98%	60.12%	25.67%	10.22%

Correlation

The correlation between RGPM.NEO and CGL.TO is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.52

Over the past year, RGPM.NEO and CGL.TO have become more correlated (0.75) than their long-term average of 0.52, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.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: 41
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CGL.TO

CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 31
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
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.

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.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 (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.

	RGPM.NEO	CGL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.12	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	1.53	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.22	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.14	1.55	+0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.76	3.77	+1.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is higher than the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGPM.NEO 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

	RGPM.NEO	CGL.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	1.12	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.93	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.74	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	0.48	+0.88

Drawdowns

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown since its inception was -29.46%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -44.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGPM.NEO and CGL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGPM.NEO	CGL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.46%	-44.53%	+15.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.46%	-19.36%	-10.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.46%	-19.36%	-10.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.18%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-23.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.85%	-17.55%	-5.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.39%	-18.16%	+9.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.91%	7.95%	+2.96%

Volatility

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a higher volatility of 16.12% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 5.60%. This indicates that RGPM.NEO'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

	RGPM.NEO	CGL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.12%	5.60%	+10.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.57%	23.18%	+12.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.99%	26.88%	+16.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.71%	18.33%	+14.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.71%	16.41%	+16.30%

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

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

Dividends

RGPM.NEO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RGPM.NEO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RGPM.NEO or CGL.TO?

On fees, CGL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RGPM.NEO or CGL.TO?

CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

What is the main difference between RGPM.NEO and CGL.TO?

RGPM.NEO is categorized as Precious Metals, while CGL.TO is Gold. 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.TO.