VS
When evaluating costs, XCLN features a management fee (MER) of 0.35%, compared to 0.89% for HLIT. Performance-wise, XCLN has returned 6.99% year-to-date with +$12 M in net flows, whereas HLIT is at 7.53% with -$1 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
XCLN
HLIT
| AuM | $26.90 M | $21.06 M |
| Management Fees | 0.35% | 0.89% |
| Exp. ratio | 0.39% | 0.89% |
| Tracking Difference | -0.54% | - |
Historical performance and flows
As of September 2, 2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | XCLN | -7.45% | -26.55% | +6.99% | +23.95% | +15.20% |
HLIT | +8.31% | -16.49% | +7.53% | +52.92% | -29.22% | |
| Flows | XCLN | +$1 M | +$4 M | +$12 M | +$15 M | +$21 M |
HLIT | +$0 M | -$1 M | -$1 M | +$2 M | -$2 M |
XCLN vs HLIT exposure
Countries
XCLN
USA
36.38%
China
22.47%
Other
41.15%
HLIT
Exposure data will be available soon
Sectors
XCLN
Industrials
48.54%
Utilities
41.86%
Technology
7.33%
HLIT
Exposure data will be available soon
As of September 2, 2026
Top 10 Holdings
XCLN
China Yangtze Power Co., Ltd.
7.93%
First Solar, Inc.
7.86%
Nextpower, Inc.
7.56%
Bloom Energy Corp.
6.98%
Enphase Energy, Inc.
4.57%
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
3.65%
Equatorial SA
3.30%
Plug Power, Inc.
2.71%
EDP SA
2.69%
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.
2.48%
HLIT
Exposure data will be available soon
Diversification
XCLN
Total weight of top 10 holdings out of 103 total
49.72%
HLIT
Exposure data will be available soon
Characteristics
Compare
XCLN
HLIT
| Provider | iShares | Global X |
| Management | Passively managed | Passively managed |
| Benchmark | S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index Net Composite - CAD | Solactive Global Lithium Producers Index NTR - USD |
| Replication Method | Direct (Physical) | Direct (Physical) |
| Asset Class | Equity | Equity |
| Dividend Policy | Distributing | Distributing |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | 0.96% | 0.11% |
| Meets ESG criteria | Yes | No |
| Inception Date | April 26, 2022 | June 23, 2021 |
Frequently asked questions about XCLN and HLIT
Which ETF has performed better year to date: XCLN or HLIT?
As of September 2, 2026, XCLN has returned 6.99% year to date, while HLIT has returned 7.53%. HLIT is ahead on YTD performance.
Which ETF is larger by assets under management: XCLN or HLIT?
As of September 2, 2026, XCLN manages $26.90 M in assets, while HLIT manages $21.06 M. XCLN is the larger fund by AUM.
How are XCLN and HLIT managed?
XCLN is passively managed by iShares. It tracks the S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index Net Composite - CAD benchmark. HLIT is passively managed by Global X. It tracks the Solactive Global Lithium Producers Index NTR - USD benchmark.
Which ETF is attracting more investor flows: XCLN or HLIT?
Year to date, XCLN has seen +$12.37 M in net flows, compared with -$0.57 M for HLIT. XCLN has attracted more net investor money so far.
How do the fees of XCLN and HLIT compare?
XCLN has an expense ratio of 0.39%, while HLIT has an expense ratio of 0.89%.
Recent articles about XCLN and HLIT
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.