VS
When evaluating costs, KILO features a management fee (MER) of 0.2%, compared to 0.28% for HEWB. Performance-wise, KILO has returned 4.63% year-to-date with +$56 M in net flows, whereas HEWB is at 30.56% with +$27 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
KILO
HEWB
| AuM | $536.34 M | $344.20 M |
| Management Fees | 0.20% | 0.28% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.23% | 0.28% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.82% |
Historical performance and flows
As of August 26, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | KILO | +12.05% | +0.94% | +4.63% | +32.02% | +126.22% |
HEWB | -1.94% | +7.85% | +30.56% | +56.31% | +157.17% | |
| Flows | KILO | +$16 M | +$13 M | +$56 M | +$142 M | +$239 M |
HEWB | +$0 M | +$15 M | +$27 M | +$26 M | +$33 M |
KILO vs HEWB exposure
Countries
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Canada
100.00%
Sectors
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Finance
100.00%
As of August 26, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Royal Bank of Canada
17.39%
Bank of Montreal
17.03%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
16.96%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
16.51%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
16.09%
National Bank of Canada
16.03%
Diversification
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HEWB
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
100.00%
Characteristics
Compare
KILO
HEWB
| Provider | Purpose Investments | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA Gold Price AM - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 31, 2018 | January 23, 2019 |
Frequently asked questions about KILO and HEWB
Which ETF has performed better year to date: KILO or HEWB?
As of August 26, 2026, KILO has returned 4.63% year to date, while HEWB has returned 30.56%. HEWB is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: KILO or HEWB?
As of August 26, 2026, KILO manages $536.34 M in assets, while HEWB manages $344.20 M. KILO is the larger fund by AUM.
How are KILO and HEWB managed?
KILO is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark. 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: KILO or HEWB?
Year to date, KILO has seen +$56.17 M in net flows, compared with +$26.91 M for HEWB. KILO has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of KILO and HEWB compare?
KILO has an expense ratio of 0.23%, while HEWB has an expense ratio of 0.28%.
Recent articles about KILO and HEWB
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.