VS
When evaluating costs, KILO features a management fee (MER) of 0.2%, compared to 0.5% for CGL.C. Performance-wise, KILO has returned 7.74% year-to-date with +$95 M in net flows, whereas CGL.C is at 3.7% with +$66 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
KILO
CGL.C
| AuM | $508.73 M | $773.49 M |
| Management Fees | 0.20% | 0.50% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.23% | 0.55% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 6, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | KILO | -2.66% | -4.85% | -7.74% | -0.45% | +93.68% |
CGL.C | -3.46% | -4.67% | -3.70% | +0.84% | +106.63% | |
| Flows | KILO | +$5 M | +$53 M | +$95 M | +$133 M | +$276 M |
CGL.C | +$23 M | +$49 M | +$66 M | +$77 M | +$257 M |
KILO vs CGL.C exposure
Countries
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
As of November 6, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
KILO
CGL.C
| Provider | Purpose Investments | iShares |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA Gold Price AM - USD | LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Commodity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | No income |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 31, 2018 | March 31, 2011 |
Frequently asked questions about KILO and CGL.C
Which ETF has performed better year to date: KILO or CGL.C?
As of November 6, 2026, KILO has returned -7.74% year to date, while CGL.C has returned -3.70%. CGL.C is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: KILO or CGL.C?
As of November 6, 2026, KILO manages $508.73 M in assets, while CGL.C manages $773.49 M. CGL.C is the larger fund by AUM.
How are KILO and CGL.C managed?
KILO is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark. CGL.C is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: KILO or CGL.C?
Year to date, KILO has seen +$94.68 M in net flows, compared with +$65.55 M for CGL.C. KILO has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of KILO and CGL.C compare?
KILO has an expense ratio of 0.23%, while CGL.C has an expense ratio of 0.55%.
Recent articles about KILO and CGL.C
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.