VS
When evaluating costs, EACC features a management fee (MER) of 0.49%, compared to 0.05% for XIC. Performance-wise, EACC has returned 12.4% year-to-date with +$47 M in net flows, whereas XIC is at 15.39% with +$9 B. 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
EACC
XIC
| AuM | $107.86 M | $34,170.67 M |
| Management Fees | 0.49% | 0.05% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.63% | 0.06% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.09% |
Historical performance and flows
As of September 2, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | EACC | -0.93% | +4.55% | +12.40% | +20.09% | - |
XIC | +0.94% | +3.15% | +15.39% | +28.94% | +91.66% | |
| Flows | EACC | +$3 M | +$12 M | +$47 M | +$65 M | - |
XIC | +$1,588 M | +$3,137 M | +$8,603 M | +$9,671 M | +$14,680 M |
EACC vs XIC exposure
Countries
EACC
Other
100.00%
XIC
Canada
96.21%
Sectors
EACC
Other
100.00%
XIC
Finance
41.74%
Energy
17.17%
Non-Energy Materials
15.50%
Industrials
8.14%
Other
17.44%
As of September 2, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
EACC
CA37962B1031
100.44%
XIC
Royal Bank of Canada
8.10%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
5.52%
Shopify, Inc.
4.12%
Bank of Montreal
3.45%
Enbridge, Inc.
3.34%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
3.00%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
2.98%
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
2.72%
Brookfield Corp.
2.48%
Suncor Energy, Inc.
2.17%
Diversification
EACC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 1 total
100.44%
XIC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 219 total
37.87%
Characteristics
Compare
EACC
XIC
| Provider | Global X | iShares |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 7.57% | 1.95% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | May 21, 2024 | February 16, 2001 |
Frequently asked questions about EACC and XIC
Which ETF has performed better year to date: EACC or XIC?
As of September 2, 2026, EACC has returned 12.40% year to date, while XIC has returned 15.39%. XIC is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: EACC or XIC?
As of September 2, 2026, EACC manages $107.86 M in assets, while XIC manages $34.17 B. XIC is the larger fund by AUM.
How are EACC and XIC managed?
EACC is actively managed by Global X. It does not track an index. XIC is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: EACC or XIC?
Year to date, EACC has seen +$46.87 M in net flows, compared with +$8,603.13 M for XIC. XIC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of EACC and XIC compare?
EACC has an expense ratio of 0.63%, while XIC has an expense ratio of 0.06%.
Which ETF is more diversified: EACC or XIC?
EACC holds 1 securities, while XIC holds 216. On holdings count, XIC is the more diversified portfolio.
Recent articles about EACC and XIC
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.