HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

HEB.TO (Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF) and HFG.TO (Hamilton Global Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds from Hamilton. HEB.TO is passively managed, while HFG.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HEB.TO returned 36.76%/yr vs 24.92%/yr for HFG.TO. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF (HEB.TO) and Hamilton Global Financials ETF (HFG.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HEB.TO achieves a 35.70% return, which is significantly higher than HFG.TO's 8.69% return.

HEB.TO

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: 7.36%
• 6M: 33.54%
• YTD: 35.70%
• 1Y: 72.35%
• 3Y*: 36.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HFG.TO

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 5.60%
• 6M: 8.52%
• YTD: 8.69%
• 1Y: 19.95%
• 3Y*: 24.92%
• 5Y*: 15.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HEB.TO Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF	35.70%	43.56%	23.55%	7.23%
HFG.TO Hamilton Global Financials ETF	8.69%	22.93%	30.80%	19.31%

Correlation

The correlation between HEB.TO and HFG.TO is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2023	0.42

Return for Risk

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

HEB.TO

HEB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 98
HEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
HEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
HEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 98
HEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
HEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 97

HFG.TO

HFG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 53
HFG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
HFG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
HFG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 61
HFG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
HFG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF (HEB.TO) and Hamilton Global Financials ETF (HFG.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	HEB.TO	HFG.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	5.31	1.54	+3.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.95	2.24	+4.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.94	1.30	+0.64
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.29	1.83	+6.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.00	5.78	+31.22

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HEB.TO Sharpe Ratio is 5.31, which is higher than the HFG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HEB.TO and HFG.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.

Drawdowns

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HEB.TO drawdown since its inception was -14.77%, smaller than the maximum HFG.TO drawdown of -42.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HEB.TO and HFG.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HEB.TO	HFG.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.77%	-42.71%	+27.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.86%	-10.95%	+2.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.77%	-13.64%	-1.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.52%	0.00%	-0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.36%	-5.37%	+3.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.97%	3.46%	-1.49%

Volatility

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Volatility Comparison

Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF (HEB.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.27% compared to Hamilton Global Financials ETF (HFG.TO) at 3.51%. This indicates that HEB.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HFG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HEB.TO	HFG.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	3.51%	+0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.93%	10.72%	+1.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.83%	13.12%	+0.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.12%	16.04%	-2.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.12%	20.25%	-7.13%

Dividends

HEB.TO vs. HFG.TO - Dividend Comparison

HEB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, less than HFG.TO's 2.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HEB.TO Hamilton Canadian Bank Equal-Weight Index ETF	2.11%	2.93%	4.24%	3.75%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HFG.TO Hamilton Global Financials ETF	2.38%	2.55%	3.05%	3.86%	10.09%	4.16%	1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HEB.TO and HFG.TO in my portfolio?

HEB.TO and HFG.TO have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.