HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HFR.TO (Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF) and MNU-U.TO (Purpose USD Cash Management ETF) are both Ultrashort Bond funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HFR.TO returned 5.69%/yr vs 4.82%/yr for MNU-U.TO. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HFR.TO charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for MNU-U.TO.

Performance

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF (HFR.TO) and Purpose USD Cash Management ETF (MNU-U.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

HFR.TO is traded in CAD, while MNU-U.TO is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the MNU-U.TO values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HFR.TO achieves a 1.32% return, which is significantly lower than MNU-U.TO's 2.42% return.

HFR.TO

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.44%
• 1Y: 3.76%
• 3Y*: 5.69%
• 5Y*: 3.88%
• 10Y*: 3.28%

MNU-U.TO

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 2.21%
• YTD: 2.42%
• 6M: 0.89%
• 1Y: 4.15%
• 3Y*: 4.82%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HFR.TO Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF	1.32%	4.04%	6.89%	5.13%
MNU-U.TO Purpose USD Cash Management ETF	2.42%	-1.74%	13.18%	0.54%

Correlation

The correlation between HFR.TO and MNU-U.TO is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2023	0.00

Return for Risk

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFR.TO

HFR.TO Risk / Return Rank: 95
HFR.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
HFR.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
HFR.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 96
HFR.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
HFR.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 96

MNU-U.TO

MNU-U.TO Risk / Return Rank: 99
MNU-U.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
MNU-U.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
MNU-U.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 99
MNU-U.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
MNU-U.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF (HFR.TO) and Purpose USD Cash Management ETF (MNU-U.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.

	HFR.TO	MNU-U.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.15	0.91	+2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.15	1.27	+3.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.79	1.16	+0.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.43	1.04	+8.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.37	2.70	+34.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFR.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.15, which is higher than the MNU-U.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFR.TO and MNU-U.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

	HFR.TO	MNU-U.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.15	0.91	+2.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	2.21	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.57	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.85	-0.25

Drawdowns

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFR.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.56%, which is greater than MNU-U.TO's maximum drawdown of -5.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFR.TO and MNU-U.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFR.TO	MNU-U.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.56%	-5.44%	-17.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.40%	-4.02%	+3.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.52%	-5.44%	+4.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-3.52%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.58%	+0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-1.70%	+1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.10%	1.54%	-1.44%

Volatility

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF (HFR.TO) is 0.28%, while Purpose USD Cash Management ETF (MNU-U.TO) has a volatility of 0.83%. This indicates that HFR.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MNU-U.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HFR.TO	MNU-U.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.28%	0.83%	-0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.81%	3.46%	-2.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.20%	4.59%	-3.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.76%	5.28%	-3.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.77%	5.28%	+0.49%

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFR.TO has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than MNU-U.TO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFR.TO vs. MNU-U.TO - Dividend Comparison

HFR.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.65%, more than MNU-U.TO's 2.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HFR.TO Global X Active Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF	3.65%	3.76%	4.50%	5.67%	3.39%	1.29%	2.69%	2.61%	2.35%	2.12%	1.97%	2.13%
MNU-U.TO Purpose USD Cash Management ETF	2.79%	2.98%	4.25%	2.69%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HFR.TO and MNU-U.TO in my portfolio?

HFR.TO and MNU-U.TO have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HFR.TO or MNU-U.TO?

On fees, MNU-U.TO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFR.TO or MNU-U.TO?

MNU-U.TO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for HFR.TO.

What is the main difference between HFR.TO and MNU-U.TO?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Purpose Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for HFR.TO and 0.20% for MNU-U.TO.