PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HUTL.TO (Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF) and CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HUTL.TO is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by Harvest, while CIF.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index. HUTL.TO is actively managed, while CIF.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HUTL.TO returned 8.52%/yr vs 18.52%/yr for CIF.TO. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HUTL.TO charges 0.67%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for CIF.TO.

Performance

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HUTL.TO achieves a 10.20% return, which is significantly lower than CIF.TO's 25.20% return.

HUTL.TO

1D
-0.76%
1M
-0.36%
YTD
10.20%
6M
10.63%
1Y
16.39%
3Y*
13.58%
5Y*
8.52%
10Y*
—

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
HUTL.TO
Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF		10.20%15.59%14.70%3.11%-4.97%16.04%-10.64%13.96%
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%15.09%

Correlation

The correlation between HUTL.TO and CIF.TO is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.25

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

0.33

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

0.42

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2019

0.46

Over the past year, the correlation between HUTL.TO and CIF.TO has dropped to 0.25 - well below their long-term average of 0.46, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
HUTL.TO
CIF.TO

Utilities

40.4%
46.9%

Communication Services

38.2%

-

Energy

18.1%
20.8%

Industrials

3.3%
31.8%

Basic Materials

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

0.5%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

0.5%

Utilities

HUTL.TO
40.4%
CIF.TO
46.9%

Communication Services

HUTL.TO
38.2%
CIF.TO

-

Energy

HUTL.TO
18.1%
CIF.TO
20.8%

Industrials

HUTL.TO
3.3%
CIF.TO
31.8%

Basic Materials

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Financial Services

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Healthcare

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Real Estate

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO

-

Technology

HUTL.TO

-

CIF.TO
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

Often compared with HUTL.TO:
HUTL.TO vs. ZUT.TOHUTL.TO vs. HUTE.TOHUTL.TO vs. ZWU.TOHUTL.TO vs. UTIL.TOHUTL.TO vs. XUT.TOHUTL.TO vs. HDIV.TOHUTL.TO vs. FTS.TO
Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO

Return for Risk

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HUTL.TO
HUTL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
HUTL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HUTL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
HUTL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
HUTL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
HUTL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.TO) and iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.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.

HUTL.TOCIF.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.61
2.33

-0.72

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.36
3.13

-0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.43

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.54

3.72

+0.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.50

13.46

-1.96

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HUTL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is lower than the CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HUTL.TO and CIF.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

HUTL.TOCIF.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.61

2.33

-0.72

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.66

1.28

-0.62

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.78

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.54

-0.05

Drawdowns

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HUTL.TO drawdown since its inception was -34.00%, smaller than the maximum CIF.TO drawdown of -42.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HUTL.TO and CIF.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HUTL.TOCIF.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.00%

-42.37%

+8.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.62%

-9.50%

+5.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.91%

-20.40%

+10.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.71%

-20.40%

+0.69%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-42.37%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.10%

-0.76%

-2.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.68%

-5.66%

-1.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.43%

2.63%

-1.20%

Volatility

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.TO) is 4.16%, while iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) has a volatility of 5.85%. This indicates that HUTL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIF.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HUTL.TOCIF.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.16%

5.85%

-1.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.30%

12.44%

-4.14%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.23%

15.23%

-5.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.00%

14.56%

-1.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.25%

16.69%

-1.44%

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HUTL.TO has a 0.67% expense ratio, which is lower than CIF.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

HUTL.TO vs. CIF.TO - Dividend Comparison

HUTL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.66%, more than CIF.TO's 1.77% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
HUTL.TO
Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF		7.66%7.94%8.30%8.56%8.13%7.16%7.73%5.33%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

HUTL.TO and CIF.TO have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, HUTL.TO is cheaper at 0.67% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HUTL.TO is cheaper with a 0.67% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

HUTL.TO is categorized as Utilities Equities, while CIF.TO is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Harvest and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.67% for HUTL.TO and 0.72% for CIF.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HUTL.TO and CIF.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