XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBM.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index in CAD, while CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO returned 16.02%/yr vs 11.94%/yr for CGL-C.TO. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XBM.TO achieves a 14.46% return, which is significantly higher than CGL-C.TO's -3.54% return. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO has outperformed CGL-C.TO with an annualized return of 16.02%, while CGL-C.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.94% annualized return.
XBM.TO
- 1D
- -1.29%
- 1M
- -2.49%
- 6M
- -3.82%
- YTD
- 14.46%
- 1Y
- 59.33%
- 3Y*
- 18.63%
- 5Y*
- 15.78%
- 10Y*
- 16.02%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.13%
CGL-C.TO
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 0.74%
- 6M
- -16.38%
- YTD
- -3.54%
- 1Y
- 23.59%
- 3Y*
- 29.48%
- 5Y*
- 19.65%
- 10Y*
- 11.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.16%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | CA$708.29K | CA$726.97K | CA$936.83K |
| CA$2.13M | CA$1.90M | CA$2.60M |
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 14.46% | 50.69% | 5.96% | 2.84% | 3.69% | 27.94% | 31.53% | 9.95% | -22.42% | 32.48% |
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | -3.54% | 55.55% | 37.41% | 10.13% | 6.11% | -4.85% | 21.75% | 11.98% | 6.86% | 4.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between XBM.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.56, 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 | 0.56 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2012 | 0.06 |
Over the past year, XBM.TO and CGL-C.TO have become more correlated (0.56) than their long-term average of 0.06, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XBM.TO
CGL-C.TO
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.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.
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.
| XBM.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.74 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.18 | +0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.50 | 1.01 | +1.49 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.85 | 2.27 | +4.58 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XBM.TO drawdown since its inception was -67.53%, which is greater than CGL-C.TO's maximum drawdown of -30.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBM.TO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XBM.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.53% | -30.01% | -37.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.88% | -23.55% | -0.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -37.45% | -23.55% | -13.90% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.57% | -23.55% | -17.02% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -57.25% | -23.55% | -33.70% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -19.97% | -21.77% | +1.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.02% | -10.79% | -15.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.70% | 10.40% | -1.70% |
Volatility
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.28% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) at 6.62%. This indicates that XBM.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
| XBM.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.28% | 6.62% | +4.66% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 33.42% | 22.80% | +10.62% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 39.07% | 26.96% | +12.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.79% | 17.47% | +16.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.85% | 15.64% | +17.21% |
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XBM.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
XBM.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, while CGL-C.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL-C.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XBM.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF | 0.73% | 0.86% | 1.25% | 2.09% | 4.83% | 3.05% | 1.81% | 3.73% | 3.38% | 1.65% | 2.41% | 5.75% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XBM.TO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.56, 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 0.60% for XBM.TO.
XBM.TO is categorized as Materials, while CGL-C.TO is Gold. XBM.TO tracks S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index in CAD, while CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD). Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XBM.TO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for XBM.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