PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HUC.TO vs. XBM.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HUC.TO vs. XBM.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) and XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals 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 XBM.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO returned 8.61%/yr vs 20.17%/yr for XBM.TO. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HUC.TO charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for XBM.TO.

Performance

HUC.TO vs. XBM.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 iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HUC.TO achieves a 45.00% return, which is significantly higher than XBM.TO's 38.48% return. Over the past 10 years, HUC.TO has underperformed XBM.TO with an annualized return of 8.61%, while XBM.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.17% annualized 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%

XBM.TO

1D
-3.17%
1M
21.23%
YTD
38.48%
6M
46.72%
1Y
119.30%
3Y*
29.93%
5Y*
19.70%
10Y*
20.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HUC.TO
Global X Crude Oil ETF		45.00%-13.63%7.23%-2.89%26.25%57.81%-21.10%19.75%-11.68%-3.47%
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF		38.48%50.69%5.96%2.84%3.69%32.04%31.54%9.93%-22.39%32.45%

Correlation

The correlation between HUC.TO and XBM.TO is -0.11, 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

-0.11

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.12

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.25

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.28

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 20, 2011

0.31

The correlation between HUC.TO and XBM.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.31 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
HUC.TO
XBM.TO

Real Estate

18.4%

-

Basic Materials

-

99.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

0.2%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Real Estate

HUC.TO
18.4%
XBM.TO

-

Basic Materials

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO
99.8%

Communication Services

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Energy

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Financial Services

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Healthcare

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Industrials

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO
0.2%

Technology

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Utilities

HUC.TO

-

XBM.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Global X Crude Oil ETF

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF

Often compared with HUC.TO:
HUC.TO vs. HXS.TOHUC.TO vs. HUN.TOHUC.TO vs. CCOM.TOHUC.TO vs. ZCOM.NEOHUC.TO vs. COW.TOHUC.TO vs. PPAHUC.TO vs. HXT.TO
Often compared with XBM.TO:
XBM.TO vs. XMEXBM.TO vs. ZMT.TOXBM.TO vs. XEG.TOXBM.TO vs. XETM.TOXBM.TO vs. GDXXBM.TO vs. VDEXBM.TO vs. XMA.TO

Return for Risk

HUC.TO vs. XBM.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: 4444
Overall Rank
HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HUC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
HUC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
HUC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
HUC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
XBM.TO
XBM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XBM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
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. XBM.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 S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.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.TOXBM.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.60
3.37

-1.77

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.10
3.67

-1.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.49

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.50

5.02

-2.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.94

19.44

-14.50

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. XBM.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HUC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the XBM.TO Sharpe Ratio of 3.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HUC.TO and XBM.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

HUC.TOXBM.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.60

3.37

-1.77

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

0.60

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.30

0.62

-0.32

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.13

0.25

-0.12

Drawdowns

HUC.TO vs. XBM.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HUC.TO drawdown since its inception was -76.99%, which is greater than XBM.TO's maximum drawdown of -67.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUC.TO and XBM.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HUC.TOXBM.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-76.99%

-67.40%

-9.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.20%

-23.88%

+7.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.83%

-37.45%

+13.62%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.83%

-40.57%

+9.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-61.56%

-57.24%

-4.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.80%

-3.17%

+0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-34.61%

-25.80%

-8.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.17%

6.16%

+2.01%

Volatility

HUC.TO vs. XBM.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) is 11.26%, while iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a volatility of 13.03%. This indicates that HUC.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XBM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HUC.TOXBM.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.26%

13.03%

-1.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.17%

29.68%

-8.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.36%

35.62%

-10.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.85%

33.06%

-5.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

29.04%

32.66%

-3.62%

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

HUC.TO has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than XBM.TO's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

HUC.TO vs. XBM.TO - Dividend Comparison

HUC.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XBM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XBM.TO
iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF		0.62%0.86%1.25%2.09%4.83%3.01%1.81%3.71%3.43%1.63%2.42%5.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

HUC.TO and XBM.TO have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XBM.TO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XBM.TO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for HUC.TO.

HUC.TO is categorized as Commodities, while XBM.TO is Energy Equities. HUC.TO tracks Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER, while XBM.TO tracks Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for HUC.TO and 0.60% for XBM.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HUC.TO and XBM.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