CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CNCL.TO (Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF) and FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - CNCL.TO tracks the S&P/TSX 60 while FLUS.TO tracks the LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CNCL.TO returned 29.00% vs 26.86% for FLUS.TO. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNCL.TO charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FLUS.TO.

Performance

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF (CNCL.TO) and Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNCL.TO achieves a 9.70% return, which is significantly lower than FLUS.TO's 13.62% return.

CNCL.TO

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 3.65%
• YTD: 9.70%
• 6M: 11.65%
• 1Y: 29.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLUS.TO

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 6.59%
• YTD: 13.62%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 26.86%
• 3Y*: 23.14%
• 5Y*: 16.75%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CNCL.TO Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF	9.70%	22.73%	17.93%	4.66%
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	13.62%	10.48%	34.58%	8.26%

Correlation

The correlation between CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2023	0.41

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNCL.TO	FLUS.TO
Financial Services	37.1%	9.9%
Energy	17.2%	1.0%
Basic Materials	16.5%	1.7%
Technology	8.4%	34.3%
Industrials	8.1%	10.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.1%	11.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	4.4%
Utilities	2.7%	1.6%
Communication Services	2.2%	12.2%
Real Estate	0.2%	2.9%
Healthcare	-	10.5%

Return for Risk

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CNCL.TO

CNCL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 79
CNCL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CNCL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
CNCL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CNCL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
CNCL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 86

FLUS.TO

FLUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 64
FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FLUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FLUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 70
FLUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
FLUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 62

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF (CNCL.TO) and Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	CNCL.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	2.05	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	2.93	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.41	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.66	2.92	+0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.95	10.86	+7.09
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNCL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is comparable to the FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNCL.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.48	2.05	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.53	0.95	+0.59

Drawdowns

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNCL.TO drawdown since its inception was -13.75%, smaller than the maximum FLUS.TO drawdown of -28.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNCL.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.75%	-28.25%	+14.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.97%	-9.24%	+1.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.83%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	0.00%	-0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.53%	-3.65%	+2.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.62%	2.48%	-0.86%

Volatility

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF (CNCL.TO) is 2.92%, while Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) has a volatility of 4.00%. This indicates that CNCL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLUS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNCL.TO	FLUS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	4.00%	-1.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.97%	10.68%	-0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.77%	13.18%	-1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.51%	14.63%	-2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.51%	15.84%	-3.33%

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNCL.TO has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FLUS.TO's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNCL.TO vs. FLUS.TO - Dividend Comparison

CNCL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.49%, more than FLUS.TO's 0.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNCL.TO Global X Enhanced S&P/TSX 60 Covered Call ETF	8.49%	9.15%	11.88%	6.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	0.62%	0.73%	0.91%	1.20%	1.72%	1.74%	1.62%	1.83%	1.66%	0.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO in my portfolio?

CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNCL.TO or FLUS.TO?

On fees, FLUS.TO is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNCL.TO or FLUS.TO?

FLUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CNCL.TO.

What is the main difference between CNCL.TO and FLUS.TO?

CNCL.TO tracks S&P/TSX 60, while FLUS.TO tracks LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CNCL.TO and 0.29% for FLUS.TO.