PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XBM.TO (iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF) and HUC.TO (Global X Crude Oil ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XBM.TO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Can Natural Resource NR CAD, while HUC.TO is a Commodities fund tracking the Solactive Light Sweet Crude Oil Winter MD Rolling Futures Index ER. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBM.TO returned 20.17%/yr vs 8.61%/yr for HUC.TO. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XBM.TO charges 0.60%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for HUC.TO.

Performance

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) and Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

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

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%

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

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
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%

Correlation

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

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

Sectors
XBM.TO
HUC.TO

Basic Materials

99.8%

-

Industrials

0.2%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

18.4%

Technology

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

XBM.TO
99.8%
HUC.TO

-

Industrials

XBM.TO
0.2%
HUC.TO

-

Communication Services

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Energy

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Financial Services

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Healthcare

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Real Estate

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO
18.4%

Technology

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Utilities

XBM.TO

-

HUC.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF

Global X Crude Oil ETF

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
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

Return for Risk

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) and Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.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.

XBM.TOHUC.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.37
1.60

+1.77

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.67
2.10

+1.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.49

1.29

+0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.02

2.50

+2.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.44

4.94

+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.

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

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

XBM.TOHUC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.37

1.60

+1.77

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.60

0.48

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

0.30

+0.32

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.25

0.13

+0.12

Drawdowns

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XBM.TOHUC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.40%

-76.99%

+9.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.88%

-16.20%

-7.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-37.45%

-23.83%

-13.62%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.57%

-30.83%

-9.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.24%

-61.56%

+4.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.17%

-2.80%

-0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.80%

-34.61%

+8.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.16%

8.17%

-2.01%

Volatility

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P/TSX Global Base Metals Index ETF (XBM.TO) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to Global X Crude Oil ETF (HUC.TO) at 11.26%. This indicates that XBM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HUC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XBM.TOHUC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.03%

11.26%

+1.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

29.68%

21.17%

+8.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

35.62%

25.36%

+10.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.06%

27.85%

+5.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.66%

29.04%

+3.62%

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

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

Dividends

XBM.TO vs. HUC.TO - Dividend Comparison

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

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

XBM.TO and HUC.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.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XBM.TO and HUC.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