VS
When evaluating costs, HCAL features a management fee (MER) of 0.65%, compared to 1.15% for QQU. Performance-wise, HCAL has returned 39.71% year-to-date with -$68 M in net flows, whereas QQU is at 3.15% with -$35 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
HCAL
QQU
| AuM | $995.79 M | $408.74 M |
| Management Fees | 0.65% | 1.15% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.82% | 1.43% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 6, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | HCAL | +3.42% | -1.66% | +39.71% | +55.65% | +229.42% |
QQU | -26.52% | -18.16% | +3.15% | +2.58% | +123.31% | |
| Flows | HCAL | -$14 M | -$65 M | -$68 M | -$59 M | -$102 M |
QQU | +$36 M | +$13 M | -$35 M | -$22 M | -$185 M |
HCAL vs QQU exposure
Countries
HCAL
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
HCAL
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
As of November 6, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
HCAL
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
HCAL
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
HCAL
QQU
| Provider | Hamilton ETFs | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD | NASDAQ-100 Index - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Other |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 3.26% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 14, 2020 | June 17, 2008 |
Frequently asked questions about HCAL and QQU
Which ETF has performed better year to date: HCAL or QQU?
As of November 6, 2026, HCAL has returned 39.71% year to date, while QQU has returned 3.15%. HCAL is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: HCAL or QQU?
As of November 6, 2026, HCAL manages $995.79 M in assets, while QQU manages $408.74 M. HCAL is the larger fund by AUM.
How are HCAL and QQU managed?
HCAL is passively managed by Hamilton ETFs. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD benchmark. QQU is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: HCAL or QQU?
Year to date, HCAL has seen -$67.69 M in net flows, compared with -$35.10 M for QQU. QQU has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of HCAL and QQU compare?
HCAL has an expense ratio of 0.82%, while QQU has an expense ratio of 1.43%.
Recent articles about HCAL and QQU
How Inverse and Leveraged ETFs Work: Use Cases, Risks and ETFs to Consider
Short-term traders can use Inverse and Leveraged ETFs strategically, but these complex instruments require careful handling. Let's explore how they work and share some examples you can consider.
Posted on 7/3/2024 by Kyle Anthony inAsset classes
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.