VS
When evaluating costs, FGLS features a management fee (MER) of 1.15%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, FGLS has returned 19.4% year-to-date with -$11 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 29.25% 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
FGLS
HBNK
| AuM | $48.43 M | $739.03 M |
| Management Fees | 1.15% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.50% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.32% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 15, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | FGLS | +7.24% | +16.60% | +19.40% | +37.08% | - |
HBNK | -0.45% | -5.64% | +29.25% | +43.02% | +165.81% | |
| Flows | FGLS | -$10 M | -$10 M | -$11 M | -$5 M | - |
HBNK | -$3 M | -$24 M | -$487 M | -$533 M | -$189 M |
FGLS vs HBNK exposure
Countries
FGLS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.74%
Sectors
FGLS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Finance
99.74%
As of October 15, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
FGLS
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
FGLS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.74%
Characteristics
Compare
FGLS
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 | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.68% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | February 1, 2024 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about FGLS and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: FGLS or HBNK?
As of October 15, 2026, FGLS has returned 19.40% year to date, while HBNK has returned 29.25%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: FGLS or HBNK?
As of October 15, 2026, FGLS manages $48.43 M in assets, while HBNK manages $739.03 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are FGLS and HBNK managed?
FGLS 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: FGLS or HBNK?
Year to date, FGLS has seen -$10.76 M in net flows, compared with -$486.68 M for HBNK. FGLS has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of FGLS and HBNK compare?
FGLS has an expense ratio of 1.50%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about FGLS 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.