QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QQC.TO (Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged) and CBIL.TO (Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQC.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CBIL.TO is a Canadian Government Bonds fund actively managed by Global X. QQC.TO is passively managed, while CBIL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QQC.TO returned 29.99%/yr vs 3.63%/yr for CBIL.TO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QQC.TO charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CBIL.TO.

Performance

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO) and Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQC.TO achieves a 22.65% return, which is significantly higher than CBIL.TO's 0.85% return.

QQC.TO

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 12.93%
• YTD: 22.65%
• 6M: 19.07%
• 1Y: 43.34%
• 3Y*: 29.99%
• 5Y*: 21.56%
• 10Y*: —

CBIL.TO

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 0.85%
• 6M: 1.08%
• 1Y: 2.34%
• 3Y*: 3.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QQC.TO Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged	22.65%	15.38%	35.73%	27.98%
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF	0.85%	2.68%	4.47%	3.36%

Correlation

The correlation between QQC.TO and CBIL.TO is 0.05, 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	0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2023	0.03

Return for Risk

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQC.TO

QQC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 76
QQC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QQC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
QQC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 82
QQC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QQC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 62

CBIL.TO

CBIL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 99
CBIL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CBIL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CBIL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CBIL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CBIL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO) and Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.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.

	QQC.TO	CBIL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.84	9.47	-6.63
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	23.59	-19.90
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	5.38	-3.88
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.59	58.74	-55.15
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.38	339.60	-328.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.84, which is lower than the CBIL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 9.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQC.TO and CBIL.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

	QQC.TO	CBIL.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.84	9.47	-6.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.02	11.64	-10.61

Drawdowns

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQC.TO drawdown since its inception was -31.81%, which is greater than CBIL.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQC.TO and CBIL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQC.TO	CBIL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.81%	-0.06%	-31.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.14%	-0.04%	-12.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.59%	-0.06%	-22.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.06%	-0.00%	-8.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.82%	0.01%	+3.81%

Volatility

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Volatility Comparison

Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged (QQC.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.36% compared to Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) at 0.08%. This indicates that QQC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBIL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQC.TO	CBIL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	0.08%	+4.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.58%	0.19%	+11.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.33%	0.25%	+15.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.85%	0.31%	+20.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.82%	0.31%	+20.51%

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQC.TO has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CBIL.TO's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

QQC.TO vs. CBIL.TO - Dividend Comparison

QQC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than CBIL.TO's 2.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF	2.29%	2.59%	4.38%	3.39%	0.00%	0.00%
QQC.TO Invesco NASDAQ 100 Index ETF CAD Hedged	0.31%	0.39%	0.45%	0.54%	0.91%	0.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQC.TO and CBIL.TO in my portfolio?

QQC.TO and CBIL.TO have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, QQC.TO or CBIL.TO?

On fees, CBIL.TO is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQC.TO or CBIL.TO?

CBIL.TO is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for QQC.TO.

What is the main difference between QQC.TO and CBIL.TO?

QQC.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CBIL.TO is Canadian Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for QQC.TO and 0.10% for CBIL.TO.