ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ZLB.TO (BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF) and CGL.TO (iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)) are both exchange-traded funds - ZLB.TO is a Canada Equities fund actively managed by BMO, while CGL.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Gold Bullion. ZLB.TO is actively managed, while CGL.TO is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ZLB.TO returned 10.66%/yr vs 10.99%/yr for CGL.TO. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZLB.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CGL.TO.

Performance

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) and iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZLB.TO achieves a 5.69% return, which is significantly higher than CGL.TO's -3.19% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with ZLB.TO having a 10.66% annualized return and CGL.TO not far ahead at 10.99%.

ZLB.TO

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 3.64%
• YTD: 5.69%
• 6M: 2.84%
• 1Y: 13.46%
• 3Y*: 15.21%
• 5Y*: 11.24%
• 10Y*: 10.66%

CGL.TO

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -9.62%
• YTD: -3.19%
• 6M: -3.25%
• 1Y: 19.93%
• 3Y*: 27.16%
• 5Y*: 15.73%
• 10Y*: 10.99%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ZLB.TO BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF	5.69%	20.40%	15.31%	9.41%	-0.35%	22.93%	1.51%	21.92%	-2.76%	11.11%
CGL.TO iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged)	-3.19%	60.08%	25.70%	11.26%	-1.07%	-4.58%	23.41%	16.58%	-3.19%	11.68%

Correlation

The correlation between ZLB.TO and CGL.TO is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2011	0.08

The correlation between ZLB.TO and CGL.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.27 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZLB.TO

ZLB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 48
ZLB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
ZLB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
ZLB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 49
ZLB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
ZLB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 48

CGL.TO

CGL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 24
CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CGL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
CGL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CGL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CGL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.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.

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.

	ZLB.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	0.78	+0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	1.15	+0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.16	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.34	0.87	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.85	2.49	+4.36

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZLB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is higher than the CGL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZLB.TO and CGL.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.

Drawdowns

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZLB.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.96%, smaller than the maximum CGL.TO drawdown of -45.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZLB.TO and CGL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZLB.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.96%	-45.96%	+12.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.67%	-24.93%	+19.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.01%	-24.93%	+16.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.00%	-24.93%	+11.93%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.96%	-24.93%	-9.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-22.50%	+22.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.49%	-20.30%	+17.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.93%	8.66%	-6.73%

Volatility

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF (ZLB.TO) is 2.63%, while iShares Gold Bullion ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CGL.TO) has a volatility of 7.67%. This indicates that ZLB.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZLB.TO	CGL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.63%	7.67%	-5.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.60%	24.08%	-16.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.26%	27.61%	-18.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.62%	18.54%	-8.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.22%	16.53%	-4.31%

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZLB.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than CGL.TO's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZLB.TO vs. CGL.TO - Dividend Comparison

ZLB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, 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%
ZLB.TO BMO Low Volatility Canadian Equity ETF	1.88%	1.99%	2.37%	2.67%	2.66%	2.39%	2.83%	2.44%	2.76%	2.55%	2.94%	2.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZLB.TO and CGL.TO in my portfolio?

ZLB.TO and CGL.TO have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ZLB.TO or CGL.TO?

On fees, ZLB.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZLB.TO or CGL.TO?

ZLB.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CGL.TO.

What is the main difference between ZLB.TO and CGL.TO?

ZLB.TO is categorized as Canada Equities, while CGL.TO is Gold. They also come from different issuers: BMO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ZLB.TO and 0.55% for CGL.TO.