VS
When evaluating costs, CGL features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, CGL has returned 0.03% year-to-date with -$34 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 30.23% with -$484 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
HBNK
| AuM | $2,190.40 M | $749.54 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.56% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.35% |
Historical performance and flows
As of September 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CGL | -0.15% | +6.86% | +0.03% | +17.88% | +114.46% |
HBNK | -2.07% | +5.08% | +30.23% | +49.78% | +160.33% | |
| Flows | CGL | +$76 M | +$52 M | -$34 M | +$82 M | +$532 M |
HBNK | +$33 M | -$71 M | -$484 M | -$669 M | -$61 M |
CGL vs HBNK exposure
Countries
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.59%
Sectors
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Finance
99.59%
As of September 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Royal Bank of Canada
17.26%
Bank of Montreal
17.04%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
16.90%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
16.41%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
16.05%
National Bank of Canada
15.93%
Diversification
CGL
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.59%
Characteristics
Compare
CGL
HBNK
| Provider | iShares | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.64% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | May 28, 2009 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about CGL and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CGL or HBNK?
As of September 11, 2026, CGL has returned 0.03% year to date, while HBNK has returned 30.23%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CGL or HBNK?
As of September 11, 2026, CGL manages $2.19 B in assets, while HBNK manages $749.54 M. CGL is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CGL and HBNK managed?
CGL is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark. HBNK is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: CGL or HBNK?
Year to date, CGL has seen -$33.81 M in net flows, compared with -$483.52 M for HBNK. CGL has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CGL and HBNK compare?
CGL has an expense ratio of 0.56%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about CGL and HBNK
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.