HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO
HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) and CLF.TO (iShares 1-5 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HUC.TO is a Commodities fund tracking the Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while CLF.TO is a Canadian Government Bonds fund tracking the Morningstar Can 1-5Y Core Bd GR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO returned 8.13%/yr vs 1.81%/yr for CLF.TO. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. HUC.TO charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for CLF.TO.
Performance
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HUC.TO achieves a 42.05% return, which is significantly higher than CLF.TO's 0.91% return. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO has outperformed CLF.TO with an annualized return of 8.13%, while CLF.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 1.81% annualized return.
HUC.TO
- 1D
- -2.03%
- 1M
- -1.85%
- YTD
- 42.05%
- 6M
- 37.99%
- 1Y
- 37.42%
- 3Y*
- 11.54%
- 5Y*
- 12.86%
- 10Y*
- 8.13%
CLF.TO
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 0.73%
- YTD
- 0.91%
- 6M
- 0.70%
- 1Y
- 2.48%
- 3Y*
- 4.19%
- 5Y*
- 1.74%
- 10Y*
- 1.81%
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HUC.TO Global X Crude Oil ETF | 42.05% | -13.63% | 7.23% | -2.89% | 26.25% | 57.81% | -21.10% | 19.75% | -11.68% | -3.47% |
CLF.TO iShares 1-5 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF | 0.91% | 3.36% | 4.82% | 4.58% | -3.98% | -1.27% | 5.53% | 3.97% | 1.68% | -0.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between HUC.TO and CLF.TO is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.40 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.18 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.16 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2009 | -0.16 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between HUC.TO and CLF.TO has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.16 to -0.40, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO — Risk / Return Rank
HUC.TO
CLF.TO
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) and iShares 1-5 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF (CLF.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.
| HUC.TO | CLF.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.30 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.23 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.32 | 1.80 | +0.52 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.59 | 5.18 | -0.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| HUC.TO | CLF.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.48 | 1.22 | +0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.46 | 0.59 | -0.12 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 | 0.54 | -0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.13 | 0.72 | -0.59 |
Drawdowns
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HUC.TO drawdown since its inception was -76.99%, which is greater than CLF.TO's maximum drawdown of -6.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUC.TO and CLF.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HUC.TO | CLF.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -76.99% | -6.91% | -70.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.20% | -1.38% | -14.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.83% | -1.42% | -22.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.83% | -6.80% | -24.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -61.56% | -6.91% | -54.65% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.77% | -0.26% | -4.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -34.60% | -1.08% | -33.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.18% | 0.48% | +7.70% |
Volatility
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Volatility Comparison
Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.36% compared to iShares 1-5 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF (CLF.TO) at 0.72%. This indicates that HUC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HUC.TO | CLF.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.36% | 0.72% | +10.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.24% | 1.62% | +19.62% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.42% | 2.04% | +23.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.87% | 2.98% | +24.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 29.04% | 3.37% | +25.67% |
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
HUC.TO has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than CLF.TO's 0.17% expense ratio.
Dividends
HUC.TO vs. CLF.TO - Dividend Comparison
HUC.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CLF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLF.TO iShares 1-5 Year Laddered Government Bond Index ETF | 2.25% | 2.22% | 2.22% | 2.23% | 2.10% | 1.98% | 2.81% | 3.93% | 2.67% | 2.91% | 3.12% | 3.29% |
HUC.TO Global X Crude Oil ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
HUC.TO and CLF.TO have a correlation of -0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CLF.TO is cheaper at 0.17% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CLF.TO is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for HUC.TO.
HUC.TO is categorized as Commodities, while CLF.TO is Canadian Government Bonds. HUC.TO tracks Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while CLF.TO tracks Morningstar Can 1-5Y Core Bd GR CAD. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for HUC.TO and 0.17% for CLF.TO.
Find the right allocation for HUC.TO and CLF.TO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer