VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO).

VALT.TO and CGL-C.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CGL-C.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Gold. It was launched on Mar 31, 2011.

Performance

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion Fund	8.41%	60.46%	25.58%	12.35%	0.92%	-3.19%
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF	10.00%	55.55%	37.41%	10.13%	6.11%	-2.41%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VALT.TO achieves a 8.41% return, which is significantly lower than CGL-C.TO's 10.00% return.

VALT.TO

• 1D: 4.34%
• 1M: -11.14%
• YTD: 8.41%
• 6M: 20.41%
• 1Y: 46.70%
• 3Y*: 31.47%
• 5Y*: 20.74%
• 10Y*: —

CGL-C.TO

• 1D: 3.62%
• 1M: -9.28%
• YTD: 10.00%
• 6M: 20.69%
• 1Y: 43.80%
• 3Y*: 33.85%
• 5Y*: 23.89%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

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

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGL-C.TO

iShares Gold Bullion ETF

Return for Risk

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

VALT.TO

VALT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 83
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 81
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CGL-C.TO

CGL-C.TO Risk / Return Rank: 85
CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CGL-C.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CGL-C.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CGL-C.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.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.

	VALT.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.68	-0.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.14	-0.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.32	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	2.69	-0.18
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.19	9.29	-0.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the CGL-C.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VALT.TO and CGL-C.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	VALT.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	1.68	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.17	1.44	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.94	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	0.63	+0.40

Correlation

The correlation between VALT.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.70, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither VALT.TO nor CGL-C.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VALT.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.96%, smaller than the maximum CGL-C.TO drawdown of -33.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VALT.TO and CGL-C.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	VALT.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.96%	-33.04%	+12.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.47%	-17.37%	-2.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.96%	-17.55%	-3.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.51%	-10.79%	-2.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.49%	-12.23%	+6.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.31%	5.03%	+0.28%

Volatility

VALT.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison

CI Gold Bullion Fund (VALT.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) have volatilities of 11.12% and 10.97%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VALT.TO	CGL-C.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.12%	10.97%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.22%	23.21%	+1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.08%	26.21%	+1.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.87%	16.73%	+1.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	15.49%	+2.28%