VS
When evaluating costs, PRA features a management fee (MER) of 0.6%, compared to 0.05% for XIC. Performance-wise, PRA has returned 21.61% year-to-date with +$76 M in net flows, whereas XIC is at 10.34% with +$6 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
PRA
XIC
| AuM | $200.91 M | $29,994.00 M |
| Management Fees | 0.60% | 0.05% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.73% | 0.06% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.11% |
Historical performance and flows
As of June 11, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | PRA | -3.06% | +1.90% | +21.61% | +36.32% | +65.85% |
XIC | +1.77% | +5.27% | +10.34% | +33.79% | +89.23% | |
| Flows | PRA | +$8 M | +$41 M | +$76 M | +$95 M | +$87 M |
XIC | +$408 M | +$2,783 M | +$5,643 M | +$7,720 M | +$11,682 M |
PRA vs XIC exposure
Countries
PRA
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Canada
99.06%
Sectors
PRA
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Financials
29.96%
Energy
17.73%
Materials
14.57%
Other
13.30%
Other
24.44%
As of June 11, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
PRA
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
ROYAL BK CANADA
7.02%
TORONTO DOMINION
5.05%
SHOPIFY SUBORDINATE VOTING
4.16%
ENBRIDGE
3.38%
BANK OF MONTREAL
3.00%
CDN IMPERIAL BK
2.89%
CA11271J1075
2.78%
CDN NATURAL RESOURCE
2.78%
BNS
2.68%
AGNICO EAGLE MINES LTD
2.63%
Diversification
PRA
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 221 total
36.37%
Characteristics
Compare
PRA
XIC
| Provider | Purpose Investments | iShares |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Commodity, Currencies, Equity, Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 2.14% | 2.03% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | September 5, 2013 | February 16, 2001 |
Frequently asked questions about PRA and XIC
Which ETF has performed better year to date: PRA or XIC?
As of June 11, 2026, PRA has returned 21.61% year to date, while XIC has returned 10.34%. PRA is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: PRA or XIC?
As of June 11, 2026, PRA manages $200.91 M in assets, while XIC manages $29.99 B. XIC is the larger fund by AUM.
How are PRA and XIC managed?
PRA is actively managed by Purpose Investments. It does not track an index. 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: PRA or XIC?
Year to date, PRA has seen +$76.02 M in net flows, compared with +$5,643.19 M for XIC. XIC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of PRA and XIC compare?
PRA has an expense ratio of 0.73%, while XIC has an expense ratio of 0.06%.
Recent articles about PRA and XIC
The Top Canadian ETFs by AUM in 2023
These ETFs rank among the largest in the Canadian industry.
Posted on 1/11/2023 by Tony Dong inETFs
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.