VS
When evaluating costs, RNAV features a management fee (MER) of 0.6%, compared to 0.5% for XIN. Performance-wise, RNAV has returned 13.15% year-to-date with +$40 M in net flows, whereas XIN is at 11.15% with +$125 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
RNAV
XIN
| AuM | $109.84 M | $1,897.39 M |
| Management Fees | 0.60% | 0.50% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.80% | 0.48% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -1.43% |
Historical performance and flows
As of October 26, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | RNAV | +1.28% | +1.03% | +13.15% | +15.62% | +83.72% |
XIN | -1.61% | -1.21% | +11.15% | +13.04% | +64.32% | |
| Flows | RNAV | +$3 M | +$10 M | +$40 M | +$17 M | +$81 M |
XIN | -$3 M | -$8 M | +$125 M | +$133 M | +$85 M |
RNAV vs XIN exposure
Countries
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
XIN
Japan
23.72%
United Kingdom
13.73%
Switzerland
9.83%
Germany
8.74%
France
8.69%
Other
35.29%
Sectors
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
XIN
Finance
27.65%
Industrials
15.79%
Technology
12.96%
Healthcare
9.68%
Consumer Non-Cyclicals
7.94%
Non-Energy Materials
7.02%
Other
18.95%
As of October 26, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
XIN
ASML Holding NV
2.93%
HSBC Holdings Plc
1.59%
Roche Holding AG
1.37%
Novartis AG
1.25%
Shell Plc
1.13%
Nestlé SA
1.12%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
1.10%
AstraZeneca PLC
1.10%
BHP Group Ltd.
1.08%
Siemens AG
1.07%
Diversification
RNAV
Exposure data will be available soon
XIN
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 658 total
13.74%
Characteristics
Compare
RNAV
XIN
| Provider | RBC Global Asset Management | iShares |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | MSCI EAFE 100% Hedged to CAD Net Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | - | Other |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 1.18% | 2.79% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 8, 2023 | September 6, 2011 |
Frequently asked questions about RNAV and XIN
Which ETF has performed better year to date: RNAV or XIN?
As of October 26, 2026, RNAV has returned 13.15% year to date, while XIN has returned 11.15%. RNAV is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: RNAV or XIN?
As of October 26, 2026, RNAV manages $109.84 M in assets, while XIN manages $1.90 B. XIN is the larger fund by AUM.
How are RNAV and XIN managed?
RNAV is actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management. It does not track an index. XIN is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the MSCI EAFE 100% Hedged to CAD Net Total Return Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: RNAV or XIN?
Year to date, RNAV has seen +$39.56 M in net flows, compared with +$125.11 M for XIN. XIN has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of RNAV and XIN compare?
RNAV has an expense ratio of 0.80%, while XIN has an expense ratio of 0.48%.
Recent articles about RNAV and XIN
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.