SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
SVR.TO (iShares Silver Bullion ETF) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SVR.TO is a Silver fund tracking the LBMA Silver Price, while CGL-C.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SVR.TO returned 13.89%/yr vs 13.74%/yr for CGL-C.TO. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SVR.TO charges 0.66%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SVR.TO achieves a 1.77% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 4.39% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with SVR.TO having a 13.89% annualized return and CGL-C.TO not far behind at 13.74%.
SVR.TO
- 1D
- -2.67%
- 1M
- 0.39%
- YTD
- 1.77%
- 6M
- 23.49%
- 1Y
- 103.85%
- 3Y*
- 42.79%
- 5Y*
- 19.02%
- 10Y*
- 13.89%
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 0.43%
- YTD
- 4.39%
- 6M
- 5.02%
- 1Y
- 33.57%
- 3Y*
- 32.37%
- 5Y*
- 21.30%
- 10Y*
- 13.74%
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SVR.TO iShares Silver Bullion ETF | 1.77% | 140.56% | 18.71% | -0.94% | 0.09% | -13.03% | 42.96% | 12.77% | -9.50% | 4.40% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 4.39% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 11.98% | 6.86% | 4.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between SVR.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.71, 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 | 0.71 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2011 | 0.54 |
The correlation between SVR.TO and CGL-C.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (all time) to 0.71 (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
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
SVR.TO
CGL-C.TO
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Silver Bullion ETF (SVR.TO) 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.
| SVR.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.27 | +0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.45 | 1.94 | +0.51 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.25 | 4.77 | +0.48 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SVR.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.81 | 1.33 | +0.48 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 | 1.26 | -0.73 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.44 | 0.89 | -0.45 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 0.60 | -0.33 |
Drawdowns
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SVR.TO drawdown since its inception was -77.85%, which is greater than CGL-C.TO's maximum drawdown of -33.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SVR.TO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SVR.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -77.85% | -33.04% | -44.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -42.63% | -17.37% | -25.26% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.63% | -17.37% | -25.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.63% | -17.55% | -25.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.52% | -22.78% | -22.74% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -37.64% | -15.34% | -22.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -50.35% | -12.24% | -38.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.85% | 7.06% | +12.79% |
Volatility
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares Silver Bullion ETF (SVR.TO) has a higher volatility of 16.51% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) at 5.33%. This indicates that SVR.TO'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
| SVR.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.51% | 5.33% | +11.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 56.28% | 21.56% | +34.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 57.68% | 25.35% | +32.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 36.45% | 16.98% | +19.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.51% | 15.56% | +16.95% |
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
SVR.TO has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
SVR.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither SVR.TO nor CGL-C.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
SVR.TO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.71, 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 0.66% for SVR.TO.
SVR.TO is categorized as Silver, while CGL-C.TO is Precious Metals. SVR.TO tracks LBMA Silver Price, while CGL-C.TO tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for SVR.TO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for SVR.TO 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