VS
When evaluating costs, RPLS features a management fee (MER) of 0.4%, compared to 0.05% for XIC. Performance-wise, RPLS has returned 1.1% year-to-date with +$146 M in net flows, whereas XIC is at 8.69% 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
RPLS
XIC
| AuM | $429.34 M | $29,521.33 M |
| Management Fees | 0.40% | 0.05% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.49% | 0.06% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.11% |
Historical performance and flows
As of June 10, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | RPLS | +0.30% | +0.62% | +1.10% | +4.59% | - |
XIC | +0.24% | +3.23% | +8.69% | +32.27% | +86.39% | |
| Flows | RPLS | +$12 M | +$9 M | +$146 M | +$282 M | - |
XIC | +$386 M | +$2,782 M | +$5,621 M | +$7,723 M | +$11,660 M |
RPLS vs XIC exposure
Countries
RPLS
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Canada
99.06%
Sectors
RPLS
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 10, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
RPLS
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
RPLS
Exposure data will be available soon
XIC
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 221 total
36.37%
Characteristics
Compare
RPLS
XIC
| Provider | RBC Global Asset Management | iShares |
| Management | Actively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | - | S&P/TSX Capped Composite Total Return Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | |
| Asset Class | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 4.20% | 2.06% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 20, 2024 | February 16, 2001 |
Frequently asked questions about RPLS and XIC
Which ETF has performed better year to date: RPLS or XIC?
As of June 10, 2026, RPLS has returned 1.10% year to date, while XIC has returned 8.69%. XIC is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: RPLS or XIC?
As of June 10, 2026, RPLS manages $429.34 M in assets, while XIC manages $29.52 B. XIC is the larger fund by AUM.
How are RPLS and XIC managed?
RPLS is actively managed by RBC Global Asset Management. 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: RPLS or XIC?
Year to date, RPLS has seen +$146.27 M in net flows, compared with +$5,620.99 M for XIC. XIC has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of RPLS and XIC compare?
RPLS has an expense ratio of 0.49%, while XIC has an expense ratio of 0.06%.
Recent articles about RPLS 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.