VS
When evaluating costs, HUTS features a management fee (MER) of 0.65%, compared to 1.15% for QQU. Performance-wise, HUTS has returned 6.98% year-to-date with +$58 M in net flows, whereas QQU is at 24.66% with -$57 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
HUTS
QQU
| AuM | $229.83 M | $470.70 M |
| Management Fees | 0.65% | 1.15% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.80% | 1.43% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 20, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | HUTS | -0.63% | -9.61% | +6.98% | +5.47% | +67.04% |
QQU | -7.15% | +3.47% | +24.66% | +23.14% | +190.72% | |
| Flows | HUTS | +$5 M | +$15 M | +$58 M | +$71 M | +$171 M |
QQU | -$1 M | +$6 M | -$57 M | -$57 M | -$207 M |
HUTS vs QQU exposure
Countries
HUTS
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
HUTS
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
As of October 20, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
HUTS
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
HUTS
Exposure data will be available soon
QQU
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
HUTS
QQU
| Provider | Hamilton ETFs | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | Solactive Canadian Utility Services High Dividend Index - CAD | NASDAQ-100 Index - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Other |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 6.24% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | September 1, 2022 | June 17, 2008 |
Frequently asked questions about HUTS and QQU
Which ETF has performed better year to date: HUTS or QQU?
As of October 20, 2026, HUTS has returned 6.98% year to date, while QQU has returned 24.66%. QQU is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: HUTS or QQU?
As of October 20, 2026, HUTS manages $229.83 M in assets, while QQU manages $470.70 M. QQU is the larger fund by AUM.
How are HUTS and QQU managed?
HUTS is passively managed by Hamilton ETFs. It tracks the Solactive Canadian Utility Services High Dividend 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: HUTS or QQU?
Year to date, HUTS has seen +$57.50 M in net flows, compared with -$56.91 M for QQU. HUTS has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of HUTS and QQU compare?
HUTS has an expense ratio of 0.80%, while QQU has an expense ratio of 1.43%.
Recent articles about HUTS 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.