When evaluating costs, KILO features a management fee (MER) of 0.2%, compared to 0.35% for HUG. Performance-wise, KILO has returned 6.99% year-to-date with +$95 M in net flows, whereas HUG is at 8.84% with -$7 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
HUG
| AuM | $512.82 M | $46.13 M |
| Management Fees | 0.20% | 0.35% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.23% | 0.35% |
| Tracking Difference | - | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of November 5, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | KILO | -1.20% | -4.12% | -6.99% | +0.27% | +95.24% |
HUG | -2.56% | -4.96% | -8.84% | -1.51% | +86.31% | |
| Flows | KILO | +$5 M | +$54 M | +$95 M | +$133 M | +$276 M |
HUG | -$0 M | -$3 M | -$7 M | -$3 M | -$2 M |
KILO vs HUG exposure
Countries
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HUG
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HUG
Exposure data will be available soon
As of November 5, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HUG
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
HUG
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
KILO
HUG
| Provider | Purpose Investments | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA Gold Price AM - USD | Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Commodity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Capitalization |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 31, 2018 | June 24, 2009 |
Frequently asked questions about KILO and HUG
Which ETF has performed better year to date: KILO or HUG?
As of November 5, 2026, KILO has returned -6.99% year to date, while HUG has returned -8.84%. KILO is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: KILO or HUG?
As of November 5, 2026, KILO manages $512.82 M in assets, while HUG manages $46.13 M. KILO is the larger fund by AUM.
How are KILO and HUG managed?
KILO is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark. HUG is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: KILO or HUG?
Year to date, KILO has seen +$94.68 M in net flows, compared with -$6.61 M for HUG. KILO has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of KILO and HUG compare?
KILO has an expense ratio of 0.23%, while HUG has an expense ratio of 0.35%.
Recent articles about KILO and HUG
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.