VS
When evaluating costs, FFIX features a management fee (MER) of 0.33%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, FFIX has returned 0.64% year-to-date with +$9 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 15.07% with -$447 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
FFIX
HBNK
| AuM | $65.22 M | $696.43 M |
| Management Fees | 0.33% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.38% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.43% |
Historical performance and flows
As of May 7, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | FFIX | +0.45% | -0.16% | +0.64% | - | - |
HBNK | +9.63% | +10.05% | +15.07% | +65.74% | - | |
| Flows | FFIX | +$6 M | -$1 M | +$9 M | - | - |
HBNK | -$203 M | -$382 M | -$447 M | -$704 M | - |
FFIX vs HBNK exposure
Countries
FFIX
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.99%
Sectors
FFIX
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Financials
99.99%
As of May 7, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
FFIX
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
ROYAL BK CANADA
17.11%
TORONTO DOMINION
16.89%
BNS
16.66%
BANK OF MONTREAL
16.52%
CDN IMPERIAL BK
16.47%
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
16.34%
Diversification
FFIX
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.99%
Characteristics
Compare
FFIX
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 | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | - | 2.88% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | June 3, 2025 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about FFIX and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: FFIX or HBNK?
As of May 7, 2026, FFIX has returned 0.64% year to date, while HBNK has returned 15.07%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: FFIX or HBNK?
As of May 7, 2026, FFIX manages $65.22 M in assets, while HBNK manages $696.43 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are FFIX and HBNK managed?
FFIX 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: FFIX or HBNK?
Year to date, FFIX has seen +$9.29 M in net flows, compared with -$447.17 M for HBNK. FFIX has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of FFIX and HBNK compare?
FFIX has an expense ratio of 0.38%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about FFIX and HBNK
Canada’s ETF Scene Surges With Bold New Themes and Income-Focused Launches
New wave of Canadian ETFs taps into culture, crypto, and income
Posted on 6/16/2025 by ETF Market Canada inCanada
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.