PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO

Last updated Jul 21, 2026
Documentation

1816.HK (CGN Power) is a stock, while ZWU.TO (BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF) is Utilities Equities fund actively managed by BMO. Over the past 10 years, 1816.HK returned 6.71%/yr vs 5.12%/yr for ZWU.TO. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a HK$10,000 investment in CGN Power (1816.HK) and BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF (ZWU.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

1816.HK is traded in HKD, while ZWU.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the ZWU.TO values have been converted to HKD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 1816.HK achieves a 1.35% return, which is significantly lower than ZWU.TO's 9.77% return. Over the past 10 years, 1816.HK has outperformed ZWU.TO with an annualized return of 6.71%, while ZWU.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 5.12% annualized return.

1816.HK

1D
5.49%
1M
0.35%
6M
-5.13%
YTD
1.35%
1Y
4.19%
3Y*
19.17%
5Y*
16.01%
10Y*
6.71%
ALL TIME*
2.16%

ZWU.TO

1D
-0.11%
1M
1.25%
6M
10.42%
YTD
9.77%
1Y
12.72%
3Y*
9.01%
5Y*
4.35%
10Y*
5.12%
ALL TIME*
3.19%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
1816.HK
CGN Power		1.35%7.04%44.53%15.25%-17.57%49.92%-15.94%16.35%-8.90%2.08%
ZWU.TO
BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF		9.77%18.82%1.78%-0.44%-9.46%16.48%-5.26%28.10%-12.85%14.17%

Correlation

The correlation between 1816.HK and ZWU.TO is 0.12, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.12

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

0.06

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

0.07

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2014

0.11

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

CGN Power

BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF

Often compared with 1816.HK:
1816.HK vs. 0883.HK1816.HK vs. 1088.HK1816.HK vs. QQQ1816.HK vs. ^GSPC1816.HK vs. URA1816.HK vs. MMA.AX1816.HK vs. OILY.TO
Often compared with ZWU.TO:
ZWU.TO vs. ZUT.TOZWU.TO vs. UMAX.TOZWU.TO vs. UTES.TOZWU.TO vs. ZWC.TOZWU.TO vs. HUTE.TOZWU.TO vs. PAYF.TOZWU.TO vs. SYLD.TO

Return for Risk

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
1816.HK
1816.HK Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
1816.HK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
1816.HK Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
1816.HK Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
1816.HK Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
1816.HK Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank
ZWU.TO
ZWU.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
ZWU.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZWU.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZWU.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
ZWU.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZWU.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.

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CGN Power (1816.HK) and BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF (ZWU.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.

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.

1816.HKZWU.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.16
1.38

-1.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.46
2.00

-1.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.24

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.16

2.16

-2.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.42

6.52

-6.10

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 1816.HK Sharpe Ratio is 0.16, which is lower than the ZWU.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 1816.HK and ZWU.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...

Drawdowns

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 1816.HK drawdown since its inception was -68.29%, which is greater than ZWU.TO's maximum drawdown of -42.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 1816.HK and ZWU.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

1816.HKZWU.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-68.29%

-42.83%

-25.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.94%

-5.91%

-21.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.46%

-15.21%

-20.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.46%

-29.81%

-5.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.46%

-42.83%

+7.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-20.60%

-2.65%

-17.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-46.62%

-11.03%

-35.59%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.05%

1.96%

+8.09%

Volatility

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Volatility Comparison

CGN Power (1816.HK) has a higher volatility of 7.99% compared to BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF (ZWU.TO) at 3.62%. This indicates that 1816.HK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZWU.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

1816.HKZWU.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.99%

3.62%

+4.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.16%

7.66%

+12.50%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

26.51%

9.30%

+17.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.36%

12.42%

+17.94%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.53%

15.78%

+10.75%

Dividends

1816.HK vs. ZWU.TO - Dividend Comparison

1816.HK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.42%, less than ZWU.TO's 7.05% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
1816.HK
CGN Power		3.42%3.52%3.62%4.74%5.31%4.08%4.97%4.05%4.48%2.73%2.34%0.11%
ZWU.TO
BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF		7.05%7.59%7.96%8.54%8.35%7.43%7.94%6.29%6.84%6.46%6.77%7.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

1816.HK and ZWU.TO have a correlation of 0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 1816.HK and ZWU.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