VS
When evaluating costs, IGAF features a management fee (MER) of 0.85%, compared to 0.75% for RTA. Performance-wise, IGAF has returned 7.8% year-to-date with -$3 M in net flows, whereas RTA is at 10.72% with +$47 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
IGAF
RTA
| AuM | $40.15 M | $347.16 M |
| Management Fees | 0.85% | 0.75% |
| Exp. ratio | 1.05% | 0.91% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 16, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | IGAF | +2.02% | -1.18% | +7.80% | +8.63% | +51.28% |
RTA | +1.40% | +0.79% | +10.72% | +11.18% | +45.15% | |
| Flows | IGAF | +$0 M | +$0 M | -$3 M | -$15 M | -$8 M |
RTA | +$17 M | +$26 M | +$47 M | +$55 M | +$19 M |
IGAF vs RTA exposure
Countries
IGAF
Exposure data will be available soon
RTA
Canada
57.94%
USA
27.37%
Other
13.46%
Sectors
IGAF
Exposure data will be available soon
RTA
Finance
27.78%
Other
13.46%
Technology
10.95%
Sovereign
9.41%
Energy
9.10%
Non-Energy Materials
8.51%
Other
20.79%
As of October 16, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
IGAF
Exposure data will be available soon
RTA
US46090E1038
9.82%
Royal Bank of Canada
4.22%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
2.97%
Shopify, Inc.
2.62%
CA74643B1031
2.12%
Bank of Montreal
1.77%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
1.67%
Enbridge, Inc.
1.64%
NVIDIA Corp.
1.60%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
1.55%
Diversification
IGAF
Exposure data will be available soon
RTA
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 4,587 total
29.98%
Characteristics
Compare
IGAF
RTA
| Provider | IA Clarington | Purpose Investments |
| Management | Actively managed | Actively managed |
| Benchmark | - | - |
| Replication Method | - | - |
| Asset Class | Equity, Fixed Income | Equity, Fixed Income |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.09% | 3.58% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | November 4, 2019 | May 11, 2017 |
Frequently asked questions about IGAF and RTA
Which ETF has performed better year to date: IGAF or RTA?
As of October 16, 2026, IGAF has returned 7.80% year to date, while RTA has returned 10.72%. RTA is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: IGAF or RTA?
As of October 16, 2026, IGAF manages $40.15 M in assets, while RTA manages $347.16 M. RTA is the larger fund by AUM.
How are IGAF and RTA managed?
IGAF is actively managed by IA Clarington. It does not track an index. RTA is actively managed by Purpose Investments. It does not track an index.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: IGAF or RTA?
Year to date, IGAF has seen -$3.46 M in net flows, compared with +$47.03 M for RTA. RTA has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of IGAF and RTA compare?
IGAF has an expense ratio of 1.05%, while RTA has an expense ratio of 0.91%.
Recent articles about IGAF and RTA
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.