VS
When evaluating costs, FSL features a management fee (MER) of 0.15%, compared to 0.28% for HEWB. Performance-wise, FSL has returned 0.03% year-to-date with -$4 M in net flows, whereas HEWB is at 15.02% with +$12 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
FSL
HEWB
| AuM | $57.84 M | $290.21 M |
| Management Fees | 0.15% | 0.28% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.02% | 0.28% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.80% |
Historical performance and flows
As of May 7, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | FSL | +1.20% | +0.72% | +0.03% | +2.96% | +18.43% |
HEWB | +9.67% | +10.04% | +15.02% | +65.38% | +121.08% | |
| Flows | FSL | +$1 M | -$5 M | -$4 M | +$4 M | +$24 M |
HEWB | +$8 M | +$9 M | +$12 M | +$7 M | -$3 M |
FSL vs HEWB exposure
Countries
FSL
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Canada
99.99%
Sectors
FSL
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Financials
99.99%
As of May 7, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
FSL
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
ROYAL BK CANADA
17.10%
TORONTO DOMINION
16.90%
BNS
16.65%
BANK OF MONTREAL
16.51%
CDN IMPERIAL BK
16.48%
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
16.35%
Diversification
FSL
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.99%
Characteristics
Compare
FSL
HEWB
| Provider | First Trust | 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 | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 6.03% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | August 28, 2013 | January 23, 2019 |
Frequently asked questions about FSL and HEWB
Which ETF has performed better year to date: FSL or HEWB?
As of May 7, 2026, FSL has returned 0.03% year to date, while HEWB has returned 15.02%. HEWB is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: FSL or HEWB?
As of May 7, 2026, FSL manages $57.84 M in assets, while HEWB manages $290.21 M. HEWB is the larger fund by AUM.
How are FSL and HEWB managed?
FSL is actively managed by First Trust. It does not track an index. HEWB 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: FSL or HEWB?
Year to date, FSL has seen -$3.73 M in net flows, compared with +$12.19 M for HEWB. HEWB has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of FSL and HEWB compare?
FSL has an expense ratio of 1.02%, while HEWB has an expense ratio of 0.28%.
Recent articles about FSL and HEWB
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
HEB ETF Spotlight: Hamilton's Newest Addition to its ETF Offering
Meet HEB, Hamilton’s new low-cost Big Six Canadian Bank ETF.
Posted on 5/2/2023 by ETF Market Canada inETFs
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.