VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

VALT.TO (CI Gold Bullion ETF) and ZGLH.TO (BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF) are both Gold funds. VALT.TO is passively managed, while ZGLH.TO is actively managed. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. VALT.TO charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for ZGLH.TO.

Performance

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

VALT.TO

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 1.59%
• 6M: -19.64%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 1Y: 17.76%
• 3Y*: 25.22%
• 5Y*: 16.17%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.95%

ZGLH.TO

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 1.45%
• 6M: -19.63%
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	CA$185.75K	CA$223.40K	CA$363.49K
ZGLH.TO BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF	CA$441.30K	CA$645.28K	CA$1.18M

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
VALT.TO CI Gold Bullion ETF	-14.52%
ZGLH.TO BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF	-16.02%

Correlation

The correlation between VALT.TO and ZGLH.TO is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 20, 2026	0.97

Return for Risk

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.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: 25
VALT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
VALT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
VALT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
VALT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
VALT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 22

ZGLH.TO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. ZGLH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CI Gold Bullion ETF (VALT.TO) and BMO Gold Bullion Hedged to CAD ETF (ZGLH.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.

	VALT.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.63	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.97	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.48	—	—

Drawdowns

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VALT.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.07%, roughly equal to the maximum ZGLH.TO drawdown of -26.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VALT.TO and ZGLH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	VALT.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.07%	-26.98%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.75%	-25.67%	-0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.25%	-14.38%	+8.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.03%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	VALT.TO	ZGLH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.23%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.23%	33.10%	-4.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.62%	33.10%	-14.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.21%	33.10%	-14.89%

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

VALT.TO has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than ZGLH.TO's 0.23% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

VALT.TO vs. ZGLH.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither VALT.TO nor ZGLH.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VALT.TO and ZGLH.TO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, VALT.TO and ZGLH.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, VALT.TO or ZGLH.TO?

On fees, VALT.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, VALT.TO or ZGLH.TO?

VALT.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for ZGLH.TO.

What is the main difference between VALT.TO and ZGLH.TO?

They also come from different issuers: CI Global Asset Management and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for VALT.TO and 0.23% for ZGLH.TO.