PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XFR.TO achieves a 1.15% return, which is significantly higher than GLCC.TO's -5.15% return. Over the past 10 years, XFR.TO has underperformed GLCC.TO with an annualized return of 2.26%, while GLCC.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.89% annualized return.


XFR.TO

1D
0.05%
1M
0.26%
YTD
1.15%
6M
1.33%
1Y
3.02%
3Y*
3.98%
5Y*
3.24%
10Y*
2.26%

GLCC.TO

1D
2.91%
1M
-6.20%
YTD
-5.15%
6M
-3.63%
1Y
48.60%
3Y*
40.00%
5Y*
20.22%
10Y*
13.89%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF
1.15%3.33%4.57%5.29%1.81%0.15%0.98%2.26%1.20%1.43%
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF
-5.15%137.43%20.18%6.19%-1.80%-9.38%15.00%38.71%-0.38%7.32%

Correlation

The correlation between XFR.TO and GLCC.TO is 0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.00

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.00

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.00

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2011

0.02

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

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

XFR.TO
XFR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
Martin Ratio Rank

GLCC.TO
GLCC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLCC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.TO) and Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.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.


XFR.TOGLCC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.97

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+5.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.98

1.23

+0.75

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

29.79

1.53

+28.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

90.21

4.34

+85.88

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XFR.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.14, which is higher than the GLCC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFR.TO and GLCC.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFR.TO drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, smaller than the maximum GLCC.TO drawdown of -81.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFR.TO and GLCC.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XFR.TOGLCC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-4.12%

-81.37%

+77.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-0.10%

-33.03%

+32.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.30%

-33.03%

+32.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-0.30%

-37.60%

+37.30%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-4.12%

-44.83%

+40.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-27.04%

+27.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-0.06%

-53.15%

+53.09%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.03%

11.60%

-11.57%

Volatility

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Floating Rate Index ETF (XFR.TO) is 0.23%, while Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF (GLCC.TO) has a volatility of 16.63%. This indicates that XFR.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLCC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XFR.TOGLCC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.23%

16.63%

-16.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

0.47%

35.94%

-35.47%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72%

43.26%

-42.54%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

0.85%

32.35%

-31.50%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

1.86%

32.16%

-30.30%

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XFR.TO has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than GLCC.TO's 0.79% expense ratio.


Dividends

XFR.TO vs. GLCC.TO - Dividend Comparison

XFR.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, less than GLCC.TO's 9.12% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GLCC.TO
Global X Gold Producer Equity Covered Call ETF
9.12%6.01%10.30%11.16%10.08%6.31%6.47%4.58%5.62%7.08%8.75%2.32%
XFR.TO
iShares Floating Rate Index ETF
2.77%3.23%4.93%4.91%1.84%0.30%1.07%1.99%1.64%0.92%0.65%0.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


XFR.TO and GLCC.TO have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XFR.TO is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XFR.TO is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for GLCC.TO.

XFR.TO is categorized as Canadian Government Bonds, while GLCC.TO is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XFR.TO and 0.79% for GLCC.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFR.TO and GLCC.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