RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.TO

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) and KILO.TO (Purpose Gold Bullion Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management., while KILO.TO is a Gold fund actively managed by Purpose Investments. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RGPM.NEO returned 42.86%/yr vs 25.66%/yr for KILO.TO. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RGPM.NEO charges 1.02%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for KILO.TO.

Performance

RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.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 Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.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 -8.76% return, which is significantly lower than KILO.TO's -7.73% return.

RGPM.NEO

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: -12.86%
• YTD: -8.76%
• 6M: -11.07%
• 1Y: 47.81%
• 3Y*: 42.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KILO.TO

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: -10.97%
• YTD: -7.73%
• 6M: -11.16%
• 1Y: 17.79%
• 3Y*: 25.66%
• 5Y*: 16.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	-8.76%	143.89%	36.75%	-3.95%
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund	-7.73%	60.17%	25.97%	11.34%

Correlation

The correlation between RGPM.NEO and KILO.TO is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2023	0.53

Over the past year, RGPM.NEO and KILO.TO have become more correlated (0.77) than their long-term average of 0.53, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.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: 31
RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
RGPM.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
RGPM.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 35
RGPM.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
RGPM.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

KILO.TO

KILO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 19
KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
KILO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
KILO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 22
KILO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
KILO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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. KILO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) and Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.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.

	RGPM.NEO	KILO.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	0.65	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	1.00	+0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.14	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	0.66	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.74	1.83	+1.91

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

The current RGPM.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is higher than the KILO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGPM.NEO and KILO.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.

Drawdowns

RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, which is greater than KILO.TO's maximum drawdown of -26.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGPM.NEO and KILO.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGPM.NEO	KILO.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.65%	-26.91%	-6.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.65%	-26.91%	-6.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.65%	-26.91%	-6.74%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.44%	-26.15%	-5.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.75%	-6.81%	-1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.85%	9.72%	+3.13%

Volatility

RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.TO - Volatility Comparison

RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a higher volatility of 17.44% compared to Purpose Gold Bullion Fund (KILO.TO) at 8.49%. This indicates that RGPM.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KILO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RGPM.NEO	KILO.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.44%	8.49%	+8.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.66%	23.80%	+14.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	45.85%	27.39%	+18.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.69%	18.19%	+15.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.69%	17.90%	+15.79%

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

RGPM.NEO has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is higher than KILO.TO's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

RGPM.NEO vs. KILO.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
KILO.TO Purpose Gold Bullion Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.41%
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

RGPM.NEO and KILO.TO have a correlation of 0.77, 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 KILO.TO?

On fees, KILO.TO is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

KILO.TO is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.

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

RGPM.NEO is categorized as Precious Metals, while KILO.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: RBC Global Asset Management. and Purpose Investments. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for RGPM.NEO and 0.28% for KILO.TO.