HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) and HBNK.TO (Global X Equal Weight Banks 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 HBNK.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, HUC.TO returned 40.27% vs 60.09% for HBNK.TO. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. HUC.TO charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for HBNK.TO.

Performance

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) and Global X Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (HBNK.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HUC.TO achieves a 45.00% return, which is significantly higher than HBNK.TO's 18.85% return.

HUC.TO

• 1D: 1.46%
• 1M: -1.28%
• YTD: 45.00%
• 6M: 41.59%
• 1Y: 40.27%
• 3Y*: 12.31%
• 5Y*: 13.32%
• 10Y*: 8.61%

HBNK.TO

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: 5.21%
• YTD: 18.85%
• 6M: 24.41%
• 1Y: 60.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HUC.TO Global X Crude Oil ETF	45.00%	-13.63%	7.23%	4.07%
HBNK.TO Global X Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	18.85%	43.71%	24.77%	8.99%

Correlation

The correlation between HUC.TO and HBNK.TO is -0.22, 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	-0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2023	-0.04

The correlation between HUC.TO and HBNK.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

HUC.TO

HUC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 44
HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
HUC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
HUC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 46
HUC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
HUC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 33

HBNK.TO

HBNK.TO Risk / Return Rank: 96
HBNK.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
HBNK.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
HBNK.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 97
HBNK.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
HBNK.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) and Global X Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (HBNK.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	HBNK.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	4.77	-3.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	6.50	-4.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.88	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	7.13	-4.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.94	30.99	-26.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the HBNK.TO Sharpe Ratio of 4.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HUC.TO and HBNK.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

	HUC.TO	HBNK.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.60	4.77	-3.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.30	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	2.66	-2.53

Drawdowns

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HUC.TO drawdown since its inception was -76.99%, which is greater than HBNK.TO's maximum drawdown of -14.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUC.TO and HBNK.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HUC.TO	HBNK.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.99%	-14.78%	-62.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.20%	-8.48%	-7.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-61.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.80%	-2.30%	-0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.61%	-2.33%	-32.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.17%	1.95%	+6.22%

Volatility

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.26% compared to Global X Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (HBNK.TO) at 5.00%. This indicates that HUC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HBNK.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HUC.TO	HBNK.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.26%	5.00%	+6.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.17%	11.26%	+9.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.36%	12.67%	+12.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.85%	12.70%	+15.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.04%	12.70%	+16.34%

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HUC.TO has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than HBNK.TO's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

HUC.TO vs. HBNK.TO - Dividend Comparison

HUC.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HBNK.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
HBNK.TO Global X Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	2.82%	3.24%	4.15%	2.45%
HUC.TO Global X Crude Oil ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HUC.TO and HBNK.TO in my portfolio?

HUC.TO and HBNK.TO have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HUC.TO or HBNK.TO?

On fees, HBNK.TO is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HUC.TO or HBNK.TO?

HBNK.TO is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for HUC.TO.

What is the main difference between HUC.TO and HBNK.TO?

HUC.TO is categorized as Commodities, while HBNK.TO is Financials Equities. HUC.TO tracks Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while HBNK.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for HUC.TO and 0.09% for HBNK.TO.