When evaluating costs, CGL features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.2% for KILO. Performance-wise, CGL has returned 0.13% year-to-date with -$110 M in net flows, whereas KILO is at 0.53% with +$45 M. Use the comparison tool below to benchmark these funds across top 10 holdings, yield, sector weights and historical returns.
NAV Performance and Flows
Key Data
Compare
CGL
KILO
| AuM | $2,117.72 M | $499.14 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.20% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.55% | 0.23% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of June 15, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CGL | -4.02% | -13.32% | +0.13% | +25.37% | +111.15% |
KILO | -3.52% | -14.06% | -0.53% | +25.18% | +110.66% | |
| Flows | CGL | -$308 M | -$289 M | -$110 M | +$169 M | +$417 M |
KILO | +$3 M | +$4 M | +$45 M | +$148 M | +$229 M |
CGL vs KILO exposure
Countries
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
As of June 15, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
CGL
KILO
| Provider | iShares | Purpose Investments |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD | LBMA Gold Price AM - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Commodity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | May 28, 2009 | October 31, 2018 |
Frequently asked questions about CGL and KILO
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CGL or KILO?
As of June 15, 2026, CGL has returned 0.13% year to date, while KILO has returned -0.53%. CGL is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CGL or KILO?
As of June 15, 2026, CGL manages $2.12 B in assets, while KILO manages $499.14 M. CGL is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CGL and KILO managed?
CGL is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark. KILO is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: CGL or KILO?
Year to date, CGL has seen -$109.88 M in net flows, compared with +$44.69 M for KILO. KILO has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CGL and KILO compare?
CGL has an expense ratio of 0.55%, while KILO has an expense ratio of 0.23%.
Recent articles about CGL and KILO
The ETF Market Canada is brought to you by Cboe in partnership with Trackinsight SA who is providing all the data, analysis and editorial content on this site. Unless explicitly stated as such, any information that you receive is not real-time.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.
All content on the ETF Market Canada is for your general information use only, Cboe is not responsible for any use of content by you outside this scope. In particular, the content does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation, representation, endorsement or arrangement by Cboe and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific investment or other decisions.