RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO
RGPM.NEO (RBC Global Precious Metals Fund) and ZGLD.TO (BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units)) are both exchange-traded funds - RGPM.NEO is a Precious Metals fund actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management., while ZGLD.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. RGPM.NEO is actively managed, while ZGLD.TO is passively managed. Over the past year, RGPM.NEO returned 47.81% vs 24.86% for ZGLD.TO. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RGPM.NEO charges 1.02%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for ZGLD.TO.
Performance
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RGPM.NEO achieves a -8.76% return, which is significantly lower than ZGLD.TO's -3.40% return.
RGPM.NEO
- 1D
- 1.05%
- 1M
- -12.86%
- YTD
- -8.76%
- 6M
- -11.07%
- 1Y
- 47.81%
- 3Y*
- 42.86%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZGLD.TO
- 1D
- 0.77%
- 1M
- -8.11%
- YTD
- -3.40%
- 6M
- -6.72%
- 1Y
- 24.86%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
RGPM.NEO RBC Global Precious Metals Fund | -8.76% | 143.89% | 44.02% |
ZGLD.TO BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) | -3.40% | 55.82% | 29.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between RGPM.NEO and ZGLD.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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2024 | 0.59 |
The correlation between RGPM.NEO and ZGLD.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (all time) to 0.75 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. ZGLD.TO — Risk / Return Rank
RGPM.NEO
ZGLD.TO
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) and BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) (ZGLD.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 | ZGLD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.19 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.43 | 1.12 | +0.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.74 | 2.95 | +0.79 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RGPM.NEO drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, which is greater than ZGLD.TO's maximum drawdown of -22.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGPM.NEO and ZGLD.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RGPM.NEO | ZGLD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.65% | -22.27% | -11.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -33.65% | -22.27% | -11.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -33.65% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.44% | -21.67% | -9.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.75% | -3.79% | -4.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.85% | 8.46% | +4.39% |
Volatility
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Volatility Comparison
RBC Global Precious Metals Fund (RGPM.NEO) has a higher volatility of 17.44% compared to BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) (ZGLD.TO) at 8.92%. This indicates that RGPM.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZGLD.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RGPM.NEO | ZGLD.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.44% | 8.92% | +8.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 38.66% | 22.95% | +15.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 45.85% | 26.41% | +19.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.69% | 21.06% | +12.63% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.69% | 21.06% | +12.63% |
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
RGPM.NEO has a 1.02% expense ratio, which is higher than ZGLD.TO's 0.23% expense ratio.
Dividends
RGPM.NEO vs. ZGLD.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither RGPM.NEO nor ZGLD.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
RGPM.NEO and ZGLD.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.
On fees, ZGLD.TO is cheaper at 0.23% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZGLD.TO is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for RGPM.NEO.
RGPM.NEO is categorized as Precious Metals, while ZGLD.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: RBC Global Asset Management. and BMO. Their fees differ too: 1.02% for RGPM.NEO and 0.23% for ZGLD.TO.
Find the right allocation for RGPM.NEO and ZGLD.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