VS
When evaluating costs, CGL.C features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.55% for ZUT. Performance-wise, CGL.C has returned 11.43% year-to-date with +$42 M in net flows, whereas ZUT is at 17.4% with -$60 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
ZUT
| AuM | $867.52 M | $890.80 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.55% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.55% | 0.61% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.74% |
Historical performance and flows
As of April 14, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CGL.C | -3.58% | +2.95% | +11.43% | +47.46% | +139.82% |
ZUT | +5.23% | +15.20% | +17.40% | +36.40% | +40.79% | |
| Flows | CGL.C | +$0 M | +$42 M | +$42 M | +$53 M | +$202 M |
ZUT | +$20 M | -$50 M | -$60 M | +$89 M | +$241 M |
CGL.C vs ZUT exposure
Countries
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Canada
82.74%
Bermuda
17.26%
Sectors
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Utilities
100.00%
As of April 14, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
BROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS LP UNIT
8.73%
ATCO
8.70%
BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE PARTNERS
8.53%
CANADIAN UTILITIES
8.28%
ALGONQUIN POWER
8.23%
HYDRO ONE
7.94%
FORTIS
7.66%
ALTAGAS
7.40%
EMERA
7.26%
CAPITAL POWER
7.12%
Diversification
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
ZUT
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 13 total
79.85%
Characteristics
Compare
CGL.C
ZUT
| Provider | iShares | BMO |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | No income | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.88% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 31, 2011 | January 19, 2010 |
Frequently asked questions about CGL.C and ZUT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CGL.C or ZUT?
As of April 14, 2026, CGL.C has returned 11.43% year to date, while ZUT has returned 17.40%. ZUT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CGL.C or ZUT?
As of April 14, 2026, CGL.C manages $867.52 M in assets, while ZUT manages $890.80 M. ZUT is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CGL.C and ZUT managed?
CGL.C is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark. ZUT is passively managed by BMO. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Utilities Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: CGL.C or ZUT?
Year to date, CGL.C has seen +$42.49 M in net flows, compared with -$60.16 M for ZUT. CGL.C has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CGL.C and ZUT compare?
CGL.C has an expense ratio of 0.55%, while ZUT has an expense ratio of 0.61%.
Recent articles about CGL.C and ZUT
Gold Prices Drop to a Three-Month Low
ETF data story for the week of June 19 to 23, 2023 in Canada.
Posted on 6/26/2023 by ETF Market Canada inGold
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.