XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO
XMA.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF) and CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - XMA.TO is a Materials fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while CGL.TO is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold Bullion. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO returned 14.00%/yr vs 11.98%/yr for CGL.TO. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMA.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL.TO.
Performance
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMA.TO achieves a 7.60% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's 2.15% return. Over the past 10 years, XMA.TO has outperformed CGL.TO with an annualized return of 14.00%, while CGL.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.98% annualized return.
XMA.TO
- 1D
- -3.13%
- 1M
- 5.70%
- YTD
- 7.60%
- 6M
- 12.34%
- 1Y
- 64.71%
- 3Y*
- 35.49%
- 5Y*
- 20.09%
- 10Y*
- 14.00%
CGL.TO
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- -1.87%
- YTD
- 2.15%
- 6M
- 4.29%
- 1Y
- 29.45%
- 3Y*
- 29.31%
- 5Y*
- 16.83%
- 10Y*
- 11.98%
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF | 7.60% | 99.21% | 20.72% | -2.04% | 1.35% | 3.31% | 19.73% | 24.63% | -10.46% | 7.07% |
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 2.15% | 60.12% | 25.67% | 11.26% | -1.07% | -4.58% | 23.41% | 16.58% | -3.19% | 11.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMA.TO and CGL.TO is 0.76, 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 | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.72 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2009 | 0.64 |
The correlation between XMA.TO and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.76 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
XMA.TO
CGL.TO
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.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.
| XMA.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.60 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.22 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.41 | 1.53 | +0.89 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.76 | 3.75 | +3.01 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XMA.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.75 | 1.10 | +0.65 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.73 | 0.92 | -0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.53 | 0.73 | -0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.28 | 0.48 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMA.TO drawdown since its inception was -64.13%, which is greater than CGL.TO's maximum drawdown of -44.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMA.TO and CGL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMA.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.13% | -44.53% | -19.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.96% | -19.36% | -7.60% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.96% | -19.36% | -7.60% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.06% | -22.18% | -10.88% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.06% | -23.72% | -9.34% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.76% | -18.22% | -0.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.31% | -18.16% | -8.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 9.60% | 7.88% | +1.72% |
Volatility
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF (XMA.TO) has a higher volatility of 13.42% compared to iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) at 5.60%. This indicates that XMA.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMA.TO | CGL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.42% | 5.60% | +7.82% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 30.86% | 23.18% | +7.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 37.08% | 26.89% | +10.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.55% | 18.33% | +9.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.56% | 16.41% | +10.15% |
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMA.TO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
XMA.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison
XMA.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, while CGL.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XMA.TO iShares S&P/TSX Capped Materials Index ETF | 0.37% | 0.41% | 0.83% | 1.26% | 1.24% | 0.87% | 0.63% | 0.62% | 0.72% | 0.42% | 0.82% | 1.90% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XMA.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CGL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CGL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for XMA.TO.
XMA.TO is categorized as Materials, while CGL.TO is Precious Metals. XMA.TO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Materials TR, while CGL.TO tracks Gold Bullion. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XMA.TO and 0.55% for CGL.TO.
Find the right allocation for XMA.TO and CGL.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