VS
When evaluating costs, CGL.C features a management fee (MER) of 0.5%, compared to 0.28% for HEWB. Performance-wise, CGL.C has returned 11.43% year-to-date with +$42 M in net flows, whereas HEWB is at 11.91% with +$7 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
HEWB
| AuM | $867.52 M | $277.71 M |
| Management Fees | 0.50% | 0.28% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.55% | 0.28% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.73% |
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% |
HEWB | +9.41% | +10.00% | +11.91% | +70.95% | +112.91% | |
| Flows | CGL.C | +$0 M | +$42 M | +$42 M | +$53 M | +$202 M |
HEWB | +$3 M | +$5 M | +$7 M | +$3 M | -$8 M |
CGL.C vs HEWB exposure
Countries
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Canada
99.99%
Sectors
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Financials
99.99%
As of April 14, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
TORONTO DOMINION
17.51%
BNS
17.08%
CDN IMPERIAL BK
17.02%
ROYAL BK CANADA
16.58%
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
15.93%
BANK OF MONTREAL
15.87%
Diversification
CGL.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.99%
Characteristics
Compare
CGL.C
HEWB
| 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 | No income | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 31, 2011 | January 23, 2019 |
Frequently asked questions about CGL.C and HEWB
Which ETF has performed better year to date: CGL.C or HEWB?
As of April 14, 2026, CGL.C has returned 11.43% year to date, while HEWB has returned 11.91%. HEWB is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CGL.C or HEWB?
As of April 14, 2026, CGL.C manages $867.52 M in assets, while HEWB manages $277.71 M. CGL.C is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CGL.C and HEWB managed?
CGL.C is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA London Gold Market Fixing Price PM Index - USD benchmark. HEWB 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.C or HEWB?
Year to date, CGL.C has seen +$42.49 M in net flows, compared with +$7.48 M for HEWB. CGL.C has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CGL.C and HEWB compare?
CGL.C has an expense ratio of 0.55%, while HEWB has an expense ratio of 0.28%.
Recent articles about CGL.C and HEWB
Bank Stocks: An Undervalued Gem?
Bank stocks are poised for growth amid declining inflation and rate cuts.
Posted on 7/29/2024 by ETF Market Canada inBanks
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.