VS
When evaluating costs, FCIP features a management fee (MER) of 0.34%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, FCIP has returned 2.89% year-to-date with +$162 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 29.41% with -$487 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
FCIP
HBNK
| AuM | $276.60 M | $739.96 M |
| Management Fees | 0.34% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.39% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.32% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 16, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | FCIP | +0.70% | -0.47% | +2.89% | +2.80% | - |
HBNK | -0.36% | -5.02% | +29.41% | +45.24% | +166.14% | |
| Flows | FCIP | +$28 M | +$52 M | +$162 M | +$215 M | - |
HBNK | -$4 M | -$24 M | -$487 M | -$533 M | -$189 M |
FCIP vs HBNK exposure
Countries
FCIP
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.74%
Sectors
FCIP
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Finance
99.74%
As of October 16, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
FCIP
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
FCIP
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.74%
Characteristics
Compare
FCIP
HBNK
| Provider | Fidelity | Global X |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Cryptocurrencies, Equity, Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 3.17% | 2.68% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | June 3, 2025 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about FCIP and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: FCIP or HBNK?
As of October 16, 2026, FCIP has returned 2.89% year to date, while HBNK has returned 29.41%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: FCIP or HBNK?
As of October 16, 2026, FCIP manages $276.60 M in assets, while HBNK manages $739.96 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are FCIP and HBNK managed?
FCIP is actively managed by Fidelity. 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.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: FCIP or HBNK?
Year to date, FCIP has seen +$162.04 M in net flows, compared with -$486.68 M for HBNK. FCIP has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of FCIP and HBNK compare?
FCIP has an expense ratio of 0.39%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about FCIP 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.