VS
When evaluating costs, CLSF.U features a management fee (MER) of 1%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. 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
CLSF.U
HBNK
| AuM | $1.39 M | $743.98 M |
| Management Fees | 1.00% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.00% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.32% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 20, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | CLSF.U | - | - | - | - | - |
HBNK | -3.01% | -2.40% | +29.54% | +44.46% | +179.51% | |
| Flows | CLSF.U | +$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M | +$0 M |
HBNK | +$0 M | -$22 M | -$483 M | -$530 M | -$197 M |
CLSF.U vs HBNK exposure
Countries
CLSF.U
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.74%
Sectors
CLSF.U
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Finance
99.74%
As of October 20, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
CLSF.U
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
The Bank of Nova Scotia
17.48%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
17.41%
Royal Bank of Canada
17.21%
Bank of Montreal
16.52%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
15.70%
National Bank of Canada
15.42%
Diversification
CLSF.U
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.74%
Characteristics
Compare
CLSF.U
HBNK
| Provider | CI | Global X |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Equity, Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | - | 2.68% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 15, 2026 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about CLSF.U and HBNK
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: CLSF.U or HBNK?
Year to date, CLSF.U has seen +$0.00 M in net flows, compared with -$483.41 M for HBNK. CLSF.U has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of CLSF.U and HBNK compare?
CLSF.U has an expense ratio of 1.00%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: CLSF.U or HBNK?
As of October 20, 2026, CLSF.U manages $1.39 M in assets, while HBNK manages $743.98 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are CLSF.U and HBNK managed?
CLSF.U is actively managed by CI. It does not track an index. HBNK is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD benchmark.
Recent articles about CLSF.U 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.