VS
When evaluating costs, RQS features a management fee (MER) of 0.2%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, RQS has returned 1.22% year-to-date with +$110 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 35.86% with -$461 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
RQS
HBNK
| AuM | $418.59 M | $807.27 M |
| Management Fees | 0.20% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.22% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.44% |
Historical performance and flows
As of July 17, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | RQS | -0.09% | +0.48% | +1.22% | +4.13% | - |
HBNK | +6.04% | +19.91% | +35.86% | +71.53% | +159.08% | |
| Flows | RQS | +$17 M | +$52 M | +$110 M | +$189 M | - |
HBNK | -$44 M | +$39 M | -$461 M | -$767 M | +$3 M |
RQS vs HBNK exposure
Countries
RQS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
100.00%
Sectors
RQS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Finance
100.00%
As of July 17, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
RQS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
17.52%
Royal Bank of Canada
17.09%
Bank of Montreal
16.85%
The Bank of Nova Scotia
16.38%
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
16.27%
National Bank of Canada
15.89%
Diversification
RQS
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
100.00%
Characteristics
Compare
RQS
HBNK
| Provider | RBC Global Asset Management | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | FTSE Canada 2030 Maturity Corporate Bond Index - CAD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 3.71% | 2.48% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | April 24, 2024 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about RQS and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: RQS or HBNK?
As of July 17, 2026, RQS has returned 1.22% year to date, while HBNK has returned 35.86%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: RQS or HBNK?
As of July 17, 2026, RQS manages $418.59 M in assets, while HBNK manages $807.27 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are RQS and HBNK managed?
RQS is passively managed by RBC Global Asset Management. It tracks the FTSE Canada 2030 Maturity Corporate Bond Index - CAD benchmark. HBNK is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: RQS or HBNK?
Year to date, RQS has seen +$110.50 M in net flows, compared with -$461.23 M for HBNK. RQS has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of RQS and HBNK compare?
RQS has an expense ratio of 0.22%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about RQS and HBNK
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.