QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

QBTL.TO (AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF) and FGLS.NEO (Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QBTL.TO is a Equity Market Neutral fund actively managed by AGF, while FGLS.NEO is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, QBTL.TO returned -26.30% vs 17.35% for FGLS.NEO. Their 0.41 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QBTL.TO charges 0.55%/yr vs 1.51%/yr for FGLS.NEO.

Performance

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF (QBTL.TO) and Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBTL.TO achieves a -15.06% return, which is significantly lower than FGLS.NEO's 14.05% return.

QBTL.TO

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 6.72%
• 6M: -13.58%
• YTD: -15.06%
• 1Y: -26.30%
• 3Y*: -9.01%
• 5Y*: -4.83%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -7.98%

FGLS.NEO

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 12.73%
• 6M: 9.19%
• YTD: 14.05%
• 1Y: 17.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -1.05%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	CA$2.29M	CA$1.61M	CA$847.06K
QBTL.TO AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF	CA$48.21K	CA$82.83K	CA$92.70K

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QBTL.TO AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF	-15.06%	-21.84%	3.80%
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	14.05%	8.38%	-21.20%

Correlation

The correlation between QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024	0.41

Return for Risk

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QBTL.TO

QBTL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 2
QBTL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
QBTL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
QBTL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 2
QBTL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
QBTL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 3

FGLS.NEO

FGLS.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 26
FGLS.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FGLS.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
FGLS.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 27
FGLS.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FGLS.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 23

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF (QBTL.TO) and Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	QBTL.TO	FGLS.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.02	0.62	-1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.43	1.12	-2.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.84	1.13	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.68	0.88	-1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.22	1.78	-3.00

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBTL.TO Sharpe Ratio is -1.02, which is lower than the FGLS.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 0.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBTL.TO drawdown since its inception was -54.72%, which is greater than FGLS.NEO's maximum drawdown of -25.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBTL.TO	FGLS.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.72%	-25.89%	-28.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.08%	-21.12%	-14.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-49.31%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-48.87%	-4.51%	-44.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.32%	-14.33%	-10.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.18%	10.41%	+9.77%

Volatility

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF (QBTL.TO) is 7.40%, while Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) has a volatility of 15.47%. This indicates that QBTL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FGLS.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBTL.TO	FGLS.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.40%	15.47%	-8.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.57%	24.14%	-5.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.14%	30.09%	-5.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.91%	25.12%	-5.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.03%	25.12%	-5.09%

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBTL.TO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than FGLS.NEO's 1.51% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBTL.TO vs. FGLS.NEO - Dividend Comparison

Neither QBTL.TO nor FGLS.NEO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QBTL.TO AGF US Market Neutral Anti-Beta CAD-Hedged ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	3.09%	0.00%	6.68%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO in my portfolio?

QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, QBTL.TO or FGLS.NEO?

On fees, QBTL.TO is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBTL.TO or FGLS.NEO?

QBTL.TO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 1.51% for FGLS.NEO.

What is the main difference between QBTL.TO and FGLS.NEO?

QBTL.TO is categorized as Equity Market Neutral, while FGLS.NEO is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: AGF and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for QBTL.TO and 1.51% for FGLS.NEO.