XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO
XGD.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF) and CJP.NEO (iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XGD.TO is a Gold fund tracking the S&P/TSX Global Gold Index, while CJP.NEO is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE RAFI Japan Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XGD.TO returned 12.09%/yr vs 16.43%/yr for CJP.NEO. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XGD.TO charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for CJP.NEO.
Performance
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XGD.TO achieves a -7.98% return, which is significantly lower than CJP.NEO's 20.36% return. Over the past 10 years, XGD.TO has underperformed CJP.NEO with an annualized return of 12.09%, while CJP.NEO has yielded a comparatively higher 16.43% annualized return.
XGD.TO
- 1D
- 0.24%
- 1M
- -0.94%
- 6M
- -25.75%
- YTD
- -7.98%
- 1Y
- 47.41%
- 3Y*
- 38.42%
- 5Y*
- 22.15%
- 10Y*
- 12.09%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.17%
CJP.NEO
- 1D
- 0.88%
- 1M
- 2.18%
- 6M
- 15.65%
- YTD
- 20.36%
- 1Y
- 43.34%
- 3Y*
- 28.63%
- 5Y*
- 23.84%
- 10Y*
- 16.43%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.52%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA$1.04M | CA$644.80K | CA$793.54K | |
| CA$16.33M | CA$17.63M | CA$21.80M |
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XGD.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF | -7.98% | 144.45% | 19.63% | 3.91% | -3.13% | -5.81% | 21.10% | 40.18% | -4.10% | 0.96% |
CJP.NEO iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 20.36% | 30.67% | 26.74% | 35.03% | 3.67% | 18.19% | 0.18% | 13.12% | -17.35% | 21.33% |
Correlation
The correlation between XGD.TO and CJP.NEO is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2009 | 0.02 |
Over the past year, XGD.TO and CJP.NEO have become more correlated (0.36) than their long-term average of 0.02, 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
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO — Risk / Return Rank
XGD.TO
CJP.NEO
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - 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 iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO). 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.
| XGD.TO | CJP.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.30 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.42 | -0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.32 | 3.98 | -2.66 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.04 | 14.47 | -11.43 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XGD.TO drawdown since its inception was -72.56%, which is greater than CJP.NEO's maximum drawdown of -38.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGD.TO and CJP.NEO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XGD.TO | CJP.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -72.56% | -38.36% | -34.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.01% | -10.99% | -25.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -36.01% | -20.86% | -15.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.82% | -20.86% | -19.96% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.96% | -37.75% | -9.21% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.87% | -1.97% | -29.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.04% | -11.09% | -20.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.65% | 3.02% | +12.63% |
Volatility
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF (XGD.TO) has a higher volatility of 10.85% compared to iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO) at 4.78%. This indicates that XGD.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CJP.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XGD.TO | CJP.NEO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.85% | 4.78% | +6.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 37.17% | 14.23% | +22.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 45.71% | 18.70% | +27.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 33.41% | 18.43% | +14.98% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.53% | 19.28% | +14.25% |
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XGD.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than CJP.NEO's 0.71% expense ratio.
Dividends
XGD.TO vs. CJP.NEO - Dividend Comparison
XGD.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than CJP.NEO's 1.16% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CJP.NEO iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 1.16% | 1.48% | 1.71% | 1.24% | 1.96% | 1.56% | 1.97% | 2.42% | 2.38% | 1.48% | 0.97% | 0.84% |
XGD.TO iShares S&P/TSX Global Gold Index ETF | 0.89% | 0.62% | 0.93% | 1.49% | 1.77% | 1.38% | 0.35% | 0.54% | 0.25% | 0.14% | 0.10% | 0.57% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XGD.TO and CJP.NEO have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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 0.71% for CJP.NEO.
XGD.TO is categorized as Gold, while CJP.NEO is Japan Equities. XGD.TO tracks S&P/TSX Global Gold Index, while CJP.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Japan Canadian Dollar Hedged Index. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for XGD.TO and 0.71% for CJP.NEO.
Find the right allocation for XGD.TO and CJP.NEO
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