VS
When evaluating costs, SVR.C features a management fee (MER) of 0.6%, compared to 0.09% for HBNK. Performance-wise, SVR.C has returned 5.38% year-to-date with -$5 M in net flows, whereas HBNK is at 25.35% with -$415 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
SVR.C
HBNK
| AuM | $136.25 M | $791.30 M |
| Management Fees | 0.60% | 0.09% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.66% | 0.10% |
| Tracking Difference | - | -0.41% |
Historical performance and flows
As of June 12, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | SVR.C | -18.35% | -21.10% | -5.38% | +88.61% | +183.28% |
HBNK | +8.46% | +23.65% | +25.35% | +68.05% | - | |
| Flows | SVR.C | -$5 M | -$5 M | -$5 M | +$29 M | +$32 M |
HBNK | +$31 M | -$184 M | -$415 M | -$667 M | - |
SVR.C vs HBNK exposure
Countries
SVR.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Canada
99.93%
Sectors
SVR.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Financials
99.93%
As of June 12, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
SVR.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
CDN IMPERIAL BK
17.03%
TORONTO DOMINION
16.96%
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
16.65%
ROYAL BK CANADA
16.56%
BANK OF MONTREAL
16.46%
BNS
16.27%
Diversification
SVR.C
Exposure data will be available soon
HBNK
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 6 total
99.93%
Characteristics
Compare
SVR.C
HBNK
| Provider | iShares | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | LBMA Silver Price - Price/USD - USD | Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks GTR Index - CAD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Commodity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.00% | 2.67% |
| Meets ESG criteria | No | No |
| Inception Date | March 4, 2011 | July 5, 2023 |
Frequently asked questions about SVR.C and HBNK
Which ETF has performed better year to date: SVR.C or HBNK?
As of June 12, 2026, SVR.C has returned -5.38% year to date, while HBNK has returned 25.35%. HBNK is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: SVR.C or HBNK?
As of June 12, 2026, SVR.C manages $136.25 M in assets, while HBNK manages $791.30 M. HBNK is the larger fund by AUM.
How are SVR.C and HBNK managed?
SVR.C is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the LBMA Silver Price - Price/USD - USD 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: SVR.C or HBNK?
Year to date, SVR.C has seen -$5.09 M in net flows, compared with -$414.83 M for HBNK. SVR.C has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of SVR.C and HBNK compare?
SVR.C has an expense ratio of 0.66%, while HBNK has an expense ratio of 0.10%.
Recent articles about SVR.C and HBNK
Fed Rate Cut Fuels Silver Surge
The Fed’s rate cut weakens the dollar, boosting gold and silver as safe-haven assets; silver ETFs surge 3.97%.
Posted on 9/23/2024 by ETF Market Canada inCommodities
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.