VS
When evaluating costs, CGL.C features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.24% for KILO.U. Performance-wise, CGL.C has returned 0.79% year-to-date with +$42 M in net flows, whereas KILO.U is at 4.45% with +$14 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.C
KILO.U
| AuM | $784.67 M | $54.50 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.24% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.55% | 0.23% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 8, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CGL.C | -1.92% | +1.95% | +0.79% | +5.63% | +132.32% |
KILO.U | -5.30% | +1.12% | -4.45% | +1.84% | +120.14% | |
| Flows | CGL.C | +$0 M | +$26 M | +$42 M | +$67 M | +$223 M |
KILO.U | +$2 M | +$9 M | +$14 M | +$17 M | +$27 M |
CGL.C vs KILO.U exposure
Countries
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO.U
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO.U
Exposure data will be available soon
As of October 8, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO.U
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
KILO.U
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
CGL.C
KILO.U
| 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 | No income | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 31, 2011 | October 15, 2018 |
Frequently asked questions about CGL.C and KILO.U
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CGL.C or KILO.U?
As of October 8, 2026, CGL.C has returned 0.79% year to date, while KILO.U has returned -4.45%. CGL.C is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CGL.C or KILO.U?
As of October 8, 2026, CGL.C manages $784.67 M in assets, while KILO.U manages $54.50 M. CGL.C is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CGL.C and KILO.U managed?
CGL.C is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark. KILO.U is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: CGL.C or KILO.U?
Year to date, CGL.C has seen +$42.30 M in net flows, compared with +$14.07 M for KILO.U. CGL.C has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CGL.C and KILO.U compare?
CGL.C has an expense ratio of 0.55%, while KILO.U has an expense ratio of 0.23%.
Recent articles about CGL.C and KILO.U
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.