USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO: Income Fund Comparison

Global X Enhanced S&P 500 Covered Call ETF - Canada (USCL.TO) and Harvest Diversified Equity Income ETF - Canada (HRIF.TO) are both income-focused funds. Below is our independent side-by-side review using the Dependable Income Investing 13-factor scoring system — designed specifically for income investors seeking reliable, sustainable distributions.

USCL.TO: MER is 1.65% which is high. HRIF.TO: ETF is subject to fees of the underlying ETFs in the portfolio. MER is 0.95% which is on the higher side. USCL.TO the fund was formed July 5 2023. HRIF.TO april 12th 2023 was fund start date. Full Dependability and Return scores for both funds are available in the app.

USCL.TO HRIF.TO
Fund Name Global X Enhanced S&P 500 Covered Call ETF - Canada Harvest Diversified Equity Income ETF - Canada
Fund Type Index Based Fund Diversified Fund
Exchange TSX TSX
Last Reviewed 2025-12-09 2025-04-14
Author , Income Investing Analyst
USCL.TO
HRIF.TO
Overall Score
Dependability

🔒 Full scores available — with Premium subscription

Compare Performance — Free →

Fund Attributes: USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO 20% of overall score

Fund Attributes cover the foundational characteristics of each fund: cost, company backing, track record, and size. These factors reflect stability and cost-efficiency for long-term income investors.

Criterion
USCL.TO
HRIF.TO
Expense Ratio
1/5

MER is 1.65% which is high.

2/5

ETF is subject to fees of the underlying ETFs in the portfolio. MER is 0.95% which is on the higher side.

Fund Company Size
5/5

Has over $100 billion in assets under management worldwide.

3/5

Harvest has over $5.8 Billion in total assets under management.

Fund History
3/5

The fund was formed July 5 2023.

3/5

April 12th 2023 was fund start date.

Fund AUM
4/5

$260 Million plus under management for USCL and $400 Million under management for USCC which is the non-leveraged version. Combined is over $660 Million.

1/5

$19 Million AUM for the fund.

Risk: USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO 35% of overall score

Risk factors evaluate how each fund manages volatility, diversification, and the nature of its underlying assets — critical considerations for income investors who prioritise capital preservation.

Criterion
USCL.TO
HRIF.TO
Volatility
4/5

According to Portfoliovisualizer the beta is low for this fund at 0.9 which is good.

4/5

According to Portfolio Visualizer The beta of the fund is about 0.77 - less volatile than the market.

Lower volatility may indicate more stability — important for investors living off their income.
Sector Diversification
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
Holding across more sectors reduces the impact of any single industry downturn.
Geographic Diversification
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
Exposure across geographies can reduce risk from any single country's economic conditions.
Fund Risk
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
The fund's overall risk profile, based on self-reported classifications where available.
Underlying Assets
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
What the fund actually holds — stocks, bonds, synthetics, or other funds — affects risk profile significantly.

See the full Risk analysis for both USCL.TO and HRIF.TO — volatility ratings, diversification scores, and analyst notes.

View Plans →

Return: USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO 45% of overall score

Return factors assess income generation quality: current yield, distribution consistency, price history, and payment frequency. This is the most heavily weighted category for income investors.

Criterion
USCL.TO
HRIF.TO
Yield
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
The current dividend yield, reflecting the annual income generated relative to fund price.
Yield Stability
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
How consistent the distribution amounts have been over time — critical for income investors who budget around payments.
Capital History
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
████████████████████████
🔒 Full analysis in app
The fund's track record of price appreciation or depreciation, reflecting total return alongside income.
Distribution Frequency
4/5

Monthly distributions.

4/5

Monthly distributions.

How often the fund pays distributions — monthly payments are generally preferred by income investors.

See the full Return analysis for both USCL.TO and HRIF.TO — yield ratings, distribution consistency scores, and capital history.

View Plans →

Our Review Methodology

Every fund reviewed on Dependable Income Investing is scored using our 13-factor Fund Report Card, organised into three weighted categories: Fund Attributes (20%), Risk (35%), and Return (45%). Each criterion is rated 1–5 by our analysts based on publicly available fund data.

We also calculate a Dependability Score — a weighted composite of six income-specific factors ranked by importance for retirement income investors: Yield Stability, Yield, Volatility, Capital History, Fund Risk, and Underlying Assets. This score answers the question income investors care about most: can I depend on this fund to pay me reliably?

Full scores, ratings, and analyst notes for both USCL.TO and HRIF.TO are available in the Dependable Income Investing app.

See our full scoring methodology →

Frequently Asked Questions: USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO

Which has a lower expense ratio, USCL.TO or HRIF.TO?

USCL.TO: MER is 1.65% which is high.
HRIF.TO: ETF is subject to fees of the underlying ETFs in the portfolio. MER is 0.95% which is on the higher side.

Which fund has more assets under management, USCL.TO or HRIF.TO?

USCL.TO: $260 Million plus under management for USCL and $400 Million under management for USCC which is the non-leveraged version. Combined is over $660 Million.
HRIF.TO: $19 Million AUM for the fund.

Which fund has been trading longer, USCL.TO or HRIF.TO?

USCL.TO: The fund was formed July 5 2023.
HRIF.TO: April 12th 2023 was fund start date.

Who manages USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO?

USCL.TO: Has over $100 billion in assets under management worldwide.
HRIF.TO: Harvest has over $5.8 Billion in total assets under management.

Where can I see the full USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO comparison with scores?

The complete side-by-side comparison — including all Risk and Return scores, analyst notes, Overall Score, and Dependability Score for both funds — is available in the Dependable Income Investing app.

What is the difference between USCL.TO and HRIF.TO?

Global X Enhanced S&P 500 Covered Call ETF - Canada is a Index Based Fund. MER is 1.65% which is high. Harvest Diversified Equity Income ETF - Canada is a Diversified Fund. ETF is subject to fees of the underlying ETFs in the portfolio. MER is 0.95% which is on the higher side. Full comparison including Dependability Score is available in the Dependable Income Investing app.

Which is better for income investors, USCL.TO or HRIF.TO?

USCL.TO: MER is 1.65% which is high. The fund was formed July 5 2023. HRIF.TO: ETF is subject to fees of the underlying ETFs in the portfolio. MER is 0.95% which is on the higher side. April 12th 2023 was fund start date. Which scores higher on Dependability and Return is available in the Dependable Income Investing app.

Do USCL.TO and HRIF.TO pay monthly distributions?

USCL.TO: Monthly distributions. HRIF.TO: Monthly distributions. Full yield and distribution stability scores for both funds are available in the Dependable Income Investing app.

See the Full USCL.TO vs HRIF.TO Comparison

The Dependable Income Investing app gives you the complete picture: all 13 scoring factors for both funds, Risk and Return analyst notes, Dependability Scores, and tools to compare any income fund side by side.

Open Free Comparison Tool →

Free. No credit card required.

"As someone new to investing, this app is a game changer!"

— J. Cook, Alert Bay, BC 🇨🇦

"It is a great tool for tracking investing. It has been incredibly helpful for my husband and me."

— R. Savino, Brea, CA 🇺🇸

"I imagine it will continue to be invaluable as I begin personally managing some or all of my investments."

— D. Giesy, Mount Vernon, WA 🇺🇸