RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) and CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) are both exchange-traded funds - RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management., while CGXF.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by CI. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RGPM.NEO returned 45.86%/yr vs 31.65%/yr for CGXF.TO. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RGPM.NEO charges 1.02%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for CGXF.TO.

Performance

RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.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 CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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 higher than CGXF.TO's -0.23% return.

RGPM.NEO

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

CGXF.TO

• 1D: 1.95%
• 1M: 3.85%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 3.91%
• 1Y: 47.55%
• 3Y*: 31.65%
• 5Y*: 17.47%
• 10Y*: 10.61%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	2.68%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	-0.23%	114.19%	11.88%	5.62%

Correlation

The correlation between RGPM.NEO and CGXF.TO is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.65

Over the past year, RGPM.NEO and CGXF.TO have become more correlated (0.91) than their long-term average of 0.65, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.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

CGXF.TO

CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. CGXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.20	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	1.63	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.23	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.14	1.74	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.76	4.39	+1.37
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. CGXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGPM.NEO and CGXF.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	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	1.20	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	0.05	+1.31

Drawdowns

RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown since its inception was -29.46%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGPM.NEO and CGXF.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGPM.NEO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.46%	-88.66%	+59.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.46%	-27.39%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.46%	-27.39%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.85%	-22.89%	+0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.39%	-30.71%	+22.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.91%	10.86%	+0.05%

Volatility

RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a higher volatility of 16.12% compared to CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) at 14.87%. This indicates that RGPM.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RGPM.NEO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.12%	14.87%	+1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.57%	32.10%	+3.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.99%	39.84%	+3.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.71%	30.85%	+1.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.71%	30.30%	+2.41%

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

RGPM.NEO has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is lower than CGXF.TO's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

RGPM.NEO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

RGPM.NEO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.37%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	12.37%	7.43%	8.09%	8.92%	8.54%	8.59%	11.01%	6.69%	7.97%	6.99%	10.68%	11.75%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.91, RGPM.NEO and CGXF.TO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

On fees, RGPM.NEO is cheaper at 1.02% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

RGPM.NEO is cheaper with a 1.02% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

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

RGPM.NEO is categorized as Precious Metals, while CGXF.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: RBC Global Asset Management. and CI. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for RGPM.NEO and 1.08% for CGXF.TO.