HUC.TO vs. HUG.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) and HUG.TO (Global X Gold 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 HUG.TO is a Gold fund tracking the Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO returned 8.13%/yr vs 10.77%/yr for HUG.TO. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HUC.TO charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.54%/yr for HUG.TO.

Performance

HUC.TO vs. HUG.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 Gold ETF (HUG.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 42.05% return, which is significantly higher than HUG.TO's 2.21% return. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO has underperformed HUG.TO with an annualized return of 8.13%, while HUG.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 10.77% 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%

HUG.TO

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: -2.14%
• YTD: 2.21%
• 6M: 4.41%
• 1Y: 27.99%
• 3Y*: 28.10%
• 5Y*: 16.01%
• 10Y*: 10.77%

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

HUC.TO vs. HUG.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%
HUG.TO Global X Gold ETF	2.21%	57.93%	24.13%	11.48%	-1.87%	-5.30%	19.82%	15.86%	-4.52%	10.34%

Correlation

The correlation between HUC.TO and HUG.TO is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.11
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2009	0.11

The correlation between HUC.TO and HUG.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HUC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HUC.TO	HUG.TO
Real Estate	18.4%	8.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

HUC.TO vs. HUG.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: 41
HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
HUC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
HUC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 43
HUC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
HUC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 32

HUG.TO

HUG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 29
HUG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
HUG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
HUG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 32
HUG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
HUG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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. HUG.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 Gold ETF (HUG.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	HUG.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	1.06	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	1.44	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.21	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.32	1.46	+0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.59	3.46	+1.13
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. HUG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is higher than the HUG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HUC.TO and HUG.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	HUG.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.48	1.06	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	0.88	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.28	0.66	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	0.43	-0.30

Drawdowns

HUC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HUC.TO drawdown since its inception was -76.99%, which is greater than HUG.TO's maximum drawdown of -47.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUC.TO and HUG.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HUC.TO	HUG.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.99%	-47.99%	-29.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.20%	-19.27%	+3.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.83%	-19.27%	-4.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.83%	-22.06%	-8.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-61.56%	-24.66%	-36.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.77%	-17.94%	+13.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.60%	-22.95%	-11.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.18%	8.11%	+0.07%

Volatility

HUC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.36% compared to Global X Gold ETF (HUG.TO) at 5.84%. This indicates that HUC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HUG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HUC.TO	HUG.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.36%	5.84%	+5.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.24%	22.75%	-1.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.42%	26.48%	-1.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.87%	18.25%	+9.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.04%	16.41%	+12.63%

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

HUC.TO has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than HUG.TO's 0.54% expense ratio.

Dividends

HUC.TO vs. HUG.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither HUC.TO nor HUG.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HUC.TO and HUG.TO have a correlation of -0.06, 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 HUG.TO?

On fees, HUG.TO is cheaper at 0.54% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

HUG.TO is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for HUC.TO.

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

HUC.TO is categorized as Commodities, while HUG.TO is Gold. HUC.TO tracks Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while HUG.TO tracks Solactive Gold Front Month MD Rolling Futures Index ER. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for HUC.TO and 0.54% for HUG.TO.