VS
When evaluating costs, KILO features a management fee (MER) of 0.2%, compared to 0.05% for XIC. Performance-wise, KILO has returned 4.93% year-to-date with +$58 M in net flows, whereas XIC is at 17.72% with +$9 B. 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
XIC
| AuM | $539.54 M | $34,871.52 M |
| Management Fees | 0.20% | 0.05% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.23% | 0.06% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.10% |
Historical performance and flows
As of August 27, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | KILO | +12.37% | +2.56% | +4.93% | +32.19% | +126.86% |
XIC | +3.69% | +7.61% | +17.72% | +32.45% | +99.52% | |
| Flows | KILO | +$18 M | +$15 M | +$58 M | +$144 M | +$240 M |
XIC | +$1,893 M | +$3,226 M | +$8,615 M | +$9,719 M | +$14,659 M |
KILO vs XIC exposure
Countries
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Canada
96.21%
Sectors
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Finance
41.74%
Energy
17.17%
Non-Energy Materials
15.50%
Industrials
8.14%
Other
17.44%
As of August 27, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Royal Bank of Canada
8.10%
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
5.52%
Shopify, Inc.
4.12%
Bank of Montreal
3.45%
Enbridge, Inc.
3.34%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
3.00%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
2.98%
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
2.72%
Brookfield Corp.
2.48%
Suncor Energy, Inc.
2.17%
Diversification
KILO
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 219 total
37.87%
Characteristics
Compare
KILO
XIC
| Provider | Purpose Investments | iShares |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA Gold Price AM - USD | S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 1.91% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | October 31, 2018 | February 16, 2001 |
Frequently asked questions about KILO and XIC
Which ETF has performed better year to date: KILO or XIC?
As of August 27, 2026, KILO has returned 4.93% year to date, while XIC has returned 17.72%. XIC is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: KILO or XIC?
As of August 27, 2026, KILO manages $539.54 M in assets, while XIC manages $34.87 B. XIC is the larger fund by AUM.
How are KILO and XIC managed?
KILO is passively managed by Purpose Investments. It tracks the LBMA Gold Price AM - USD benchmark. XIC is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: KILO or XIC?
Year to date, KILO has seen +$57.85 M in net flows, compared with +$8,614.73 M for XIC. XIC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of KILO and XIC compare?
KILO has an expense ratio of 0.23%, while XIC has an expense ratio of 0.06%.
Recent articles about KILO and XIC
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.