PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

XQQ.TO vs. HUTL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XQQ.TO (iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and HUTL.TO (Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XQQ.TO is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Morningstar US Market TR CAD, while HUTL.TO is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by Harvest. XQQ.TO is passively managed, while HUTL.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XQQ.TO returned 15.31%/yr vs 8.52%/yr for HUTL.TO. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XQQ.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for HUTL.TO.

Performance

XQQ.TO vs. HUTL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) and Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XQQ.TO achieves a 19.81% return, which is significantly higher than HUTL.TO's 10.20% return.

XQQ.TO

1D
-0.27%
1M
10.58%
YTD
19.81%
6M
18.06%
1Y
38.49%
3Y*
26.43%
5Y*
15.31%
10Y*
19.70%

HUTL.TO

1D
-0.76%
1M
-0.36%
YTD
10.20%
6M
10.63%
1Y
16.39%
3Y*
13.58%
5Y*
8.52%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		19.81%18.38%24.23%52.23%-33.67%22.29%45.23%28.12%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between XQQ.TO and HUTL.TO is 0.03, 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

0.03

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

-0.01

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

0.15

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

0.22

The correlation between XQQ.TO and HUTL.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (3 years) to 0.22 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
XQQ.TO
HUTL.TO

Technology

53.7%

-

Communication Services

15.8%
38.2%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%

-

Consumer Defensive

7.7%

-

Healthcare

4.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%
3.3%

Utilities

1.4%
40.4%

Basic Materials

1.1%

-

Energy

0.6%
18.1%

Financial Services

0.2%

-

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

XQQ.TO
53.7%
HUTL.TO

-

Communication Services

XQQ.TO
15.8%
HUTL.TO
38.2%

Consumer Cyclical

XQQ.TO
12.2%
HUTL.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

XQQ.TO
7.7%
HUTL.TO

-

Healthcare

XQQ.TO
4.2%
HUTL.TO

-

Industrials

XQQ.TO
3.1%
HUTL.TO
3.3%

Utilities

XQQ.TO
1.4%
HUTL.TO
40.4%

Basic Materials

XQQ.TO
1.1%
HUTL.TO

-

Energy

XQQ.TO
0.6%
HUTL.TO
18.1%

Financial Services

XQQ.TO
0.2%
HUTL.TO

-

Real Estate

XQQ.TO
0.1%
HUTL.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 NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)

Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF

Often compared with XQQ.TO:
XQQ.TO vs. QQC.TOXQQ.TO vs. VFV.TOXQQ.TO vs. HXQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. XQQU.TOXQQ.TO vs. QQQXQQ.TO vs. ZQQ.TOXQQ.TO vs. TEC.TO
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

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XQQ.TO
XQQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
XQQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
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
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) and Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.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.

XQQ.TOHUTL.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.45
1.61

+0.84

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.20
2.36

+0.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.30

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.03

4.54

-1.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.31

11.50

-0.19

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

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

The current XQQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is higher than the HUTL.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XQQ.TO and HUTL.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

XQQ.TOHUTL.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.45

1.61

+0.84

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

0.66

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.86

0.49

+0.37

Drawdowns

XQQ.TO vs. HUTL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XQQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -38.55%, which is greater than HUTL.TO's maximum drawdown of -34.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XQQ.TO and HUTL.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XQQ.TOHUTL.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.55%

-34.00%

-4.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.76%

-3.62%

-9.14%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.72%

-9.91%

-12.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.55%

-19.71%

-18.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.55%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.27%

-3.10%

+2.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.92%

-6.68%

+0.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.41%

1.43%

+1.98%

Volatility

XQQ.TO vs. HUTL.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (XQQ.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.48% compared to Harvest Equal Weight Global Utilities Income ETF (HUTL.TO) at 4.16%. This indicates that XQQ.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HUTL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XQQ.TOHUTL.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.48%

4.16%

+0.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.00%

8.30%

+3.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.82%

10.23%

+5.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.52%

13.00%

+9.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.34%

15.25%

+7.09%

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

XQQ.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than HUTL.TO's 0.67% expense ratio.

Dividends

XQQ.TO vs. HUTL.TO - Dividend Comparison

XQQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than HUTL.TO's 7.66% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XQQ.TO
iShares NASDAQ 100 Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)		0.21%0.25%0.32%0.31%0.43%0.17%0.26%0.46%0.52%0.53%0.76%0.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

XQQ.TO and HUTL.TO have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XQQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XQQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.67% for HUTL.TO.

XQQ.TO is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while HUTL.TO is Utilities Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Harvest. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for XQQ.TO and 0.67% for HUTL.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XQQ.TO and HUTL.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