ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO
ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) and CGL-C.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while CGL-C.TO is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price (CAD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO returned 16.89%/yr vs 11.94%/yr for CGL-C.TO. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. ZEB.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL-C.TO.
Performance
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZEB.TO achieves a 32.66% return, which is significantly higher than CGL-C.TO's -3.54% return. Over the past 10 years, ZEB.TO has outperformed CGL-C.TO with an annualized return of 16.89%, while CGL-C.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.94% annualized return.
ZEB.TO
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- 1.99%
- 6M
- 31.28%
- YTD
- 32.66%
- 1Y
- 66.60%
- 3Y*
- 35.61%
- 5Y*
- 21.11%
- 10Y*
- 16.89%
- ALL TIME*
- 14.33%
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$126.80M | CA$156.35M | CA$135.34M |
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF | 32.66% | 43.43% | 24.58% | 10.87% | -10.38% | 39.38% | 3.52% | 16.06% | -8.85% | 14.26% |
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 ZEB.TO and CGL-C.TO is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.03 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2012 | -0.15 |
The correlation between ZEB.TO and CGL-C.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (all time) to 0.19 (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
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO — Risk / Return Rank
ZEB.TO
CGL-C.TO
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.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.
| ZEB.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +4.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +5.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.86 | 1.18 | +0.68 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.93 | 1.01 | +6.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 33.19 | 2.27 | +30.92 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZEB.TO drawdown since its inception was -39.69%, 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 ZEB.TO and CGL-C.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZEB.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -39.69% | -30.01% | -9.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.44% | -23.55% | +15.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.80% | -23.55% | +8.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.97% | -23.55% | -2.42% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.69% | -23.55% | -16.14% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.12% | -21.77% | +18.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.61% | -10.79% | +5.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.01% | 10.40% | -8.39% |
Volatility
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) is 5.06%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CGL-C.TO) has a volatility of 6.62%. This indicates that ZEB.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky 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
| ZEB.TO | CGL-C.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.06% | 6.62% | -1.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.83% | 22.80% | -10.97% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.66% | 26.96% | -13.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.64% | 17.47% | -3.83% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.93% | 15.64% | +1.29% |
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZEB.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL-C.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZEB.TO vs. CGL-C.TO - Dividend Comparison
ZEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, 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% |
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF | 2.29% | 2.95% | 3.98% | 4.75% | 4.29% | 3.13% | 4.15% | 3.65% | 3.64% | 3.02% | 3.19% | 3.70% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZEB.TO and CGL-C.TO have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZEB.TO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZEB.TO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
ZEB.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while CGL-C.TO is Gold. ZEB.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index, while CGL-C.TO tracks LBMA Gold Price (CAD). They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ZEB.TO and 0.55% for CGL-C.TO.
Find the right allocation for ZEB.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