PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF (XGD.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XGD.TO achieves a 3.35% return, which is significantly higher than CGXF.TO's -2.14% return. Over the past 10 years, XGD.TO has outperformed CGXF.TO with an annualized return of 14.79%, while CGXF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.53% annualized return.


XGD.TO

1D
-2.80%
1M
1.62%
YTD
3.35%
6M
8.72%
1Y
67.78%
3Y*
43.11%
5Y*
22.30%
10Y*
14.79%

CGXF.TO

1D
-2.68%
1M
1.53%
YTD
-2.14%
6M
2.55%
1Y
44.73%
3Y*
30.89%
5Y*
17.02%
10Y*
10.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XGD.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF
3.35%144.45%19.63%3.91%-3.10%-5.81%21.10%40.18%-4.10%0.96%
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common
-2.14%114.19%11.88%1.43%1.89%-6.21%15.23%20.53%-18.76%5.51%

Correlation

The correlation between XGD.TO and CGXF.TO is 0.98 - 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 (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.98

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

0.97

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

0.97

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

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2011

0.74

Over the past year, XGD.TO and CGXF.TO have become more correlated (0.98) than their long-term average of 0.74, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XGD.TO
CGXF.TO

Basic Materials

100.0%
100.0%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

XGD.TO
100.0%
CGXF.TO
100.0%

Communication Services

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Energy

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Financial Services

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Healthcare

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Industrials

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Real Estate

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Technology

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

Utilities

XGD.TO

-

CGXF.TO

-

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

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

XGD.TO
XGD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
XGD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
XGD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4747
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank

CGXF.TO
CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
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.

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF (XGD.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.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.


XGD.TOCGXF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.41

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.22

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.35

1.64

+0.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.22

4.17

+2.05

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XGD.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is higher than the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGD.TO and CGXF.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XGD.TOCGXF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.59

1.13

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.69

0.56

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

0.35

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.25

0.05

+0.20

Drawdowns

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGD.TO drawdown since its inception was -72.55%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGD.TO and CGXF.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XGD.TOCGXF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-72.55%

-88.66%

+16.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.95%

-27.39%

-1.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.95%

-27.39%

-1.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.82%

-37.19%

-3.63%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.96%

-39.68%

-7.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-23.49%

-24.36%

+0.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.30%

-30.71%

+2.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.93%

10.76%

+0.17%

Volatility

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF (XGD.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) have volatilities of 14.43% and 14.76%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XGD.TOCGXF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.43%

14.76%

-0.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

34.40%

32.10%

+2.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.86%

39.82%

+3.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

32.64%

30.85%

+1.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.38%

30.30%

+3.08%

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XGD.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than CGXF.TO's 1.08% expense ratio.


Dividends

XGD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

XGD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than CGXF.TO's 12.61% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGXF.TO
CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common
12.61%7.43%8.09%8.92%8.54%8.59%11.01%6.69%7.97%6.99%10.68%11.75%
XGD.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF
0.60%0.62%0.93%1.49%1.80%1.38%0.35%0.54%0.25%0.14%0.09%0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.98, XGD.TO and CGXF.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.

On fees, XGD.TO is cheaper at 0.61% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XGD.TO is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

XGD.TO is categorized as Precious Metals, while CGXF.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: iShares and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for XGD.TO and 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGD.TO and CGXF.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