ZGLD.TO vs. CGXF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ZGLD.TO (BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units)) and CGXF.TO (CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common) are both Gold funds. ZGLD.TO is passively managed, while CGXF.TO is actively managed. Over the past year, ZGLD.TO returned 33.90% vs 44.73% for CGXF.TO. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ZGLD.TO charges 0.23%/yr vs 1.08%/yr for CGXF.TO.

Performance

ZGLD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) (ZGLD.TO) and CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZGLD.TO achieves a 4.35% return, which is significantly higher than CGXF.TO's -2.14% return.

ZGLD.TO

• 1D: -0.70%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 6M: 5.03%
• 1Y: 33.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZGLD.TO BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units)	4.35%	55.82%	28.23%
CGXF.TO CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common	-2.14%	114.19%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 12, 2024	0.71

The correlation between ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

ZGLD.TO

ZGLD.TO Risk / Return Rank: 36
ZGLD.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ZGLD.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
ZGLD.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
ZGLD.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
ZGLD.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

CGXF.TO

CGXF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
CGXF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CGXF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
CGXF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) (ZGLD.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.

	ZGLD.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	1.13	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	1.57	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.22	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	1.64	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.85	4.17	+0.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current ZGLD.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is comparable to the CGXF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZGLD.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ZGLD.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	1.13	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.91	0.05	+1.86

Drawdowns

ZGLD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZGLD.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.23%, smaller than the maximum CGXF.TO drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZGLD.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.23%	-88.66%	+71.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.23%	-27.39%	+10.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.38%	-24.36%	+8.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.37%	-30.71%	+27.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.00%	10.76%	-3.76%

Volatility

ZGLD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units) (ZGLD.TO) is 5.27%, while CI Gold+ Giants Covered Call ETF Common (CGXF.TO) has a volatility of 14.76%. This indicates that ZGLD.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGXF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZGLD.TO	CGXF.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.27%	14.76%	-9.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.46%	32.10%	-10.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.17%	39.82%	-14.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.58%	30.85%	-10.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.58%	30.30%	-9.72%

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

ZGLD.TO has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than CGXF.TO's 1.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZGLD.TO vs. CGXF.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZGLD.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CGXF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.61%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
ZGLD.TO BMO Gold Bullion ETF (CAD Units)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO in my portfolio?

ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZGLD.TO or CGXF.TO?

On fees, ZGLD.TO is cheaper at 0.23% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZGLD.TO or CGXF.TO?

ZGLD.TO is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for CGXF.TO.

What is the main difference between ZGLD.TO and CGXF.TO?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and CI. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for ZGLD.TO and 1.08% for CGXF.TO.