CBIL.TO vs. ZFL.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CBIL.TO (Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF) and ZFL.TO (BMO Long Federal Bond) are both Canadian Government Bonds funds. CBIL.TO is actively managed, while ZFL.TO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CBIL.TO returned 3.63%/yr vs -0.42%/yr for ZFL.TO. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CBIL.TO charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for ZFL.TO.

Performance

CBIL.TO vs. ZFL.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) and BMO Long Federal Bond (ZFL.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBIL.TO achieves a 0.85% return, which is significantly lower than ZFL.TO's 2.39% return.

CBIL.TO

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

ZFL.TO

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 2.93%
• YTD: 2.39%
• 6M: -0.37%
• 1Y: -0.83%
• 3Y*: -0.42%
• 5Y*: -3.89%
• 10Y*: -1.37%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF	0.85%	2.68%	4.47%	3.36%
ZFL.TO BMO Long Federal Bond	2.39%	-5.14%	-2.20%	3.79%

Correlation

The correlation between CBIL.TO and ZFL.TO is -0.00, 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	-0.00
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2023	0.04

Return for Risk

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

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

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

ZFL.TO

ZFL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7
ZFL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
ZFL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
ZFL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7
ZFL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
ZFL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) and BMO Long Federal Bond (ZFL.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.

	CBIL.TO	ZFL.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	9.47	-0.09	+9.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	23.59	-0.05	+23.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	5.38	0.99	+4.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	58.74	-0.12	+58.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	339.60	-0.22	+339.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CBIL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 9.47, which is higher than the ZFL.TO Sharpe Ratio of -0.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBIL.TO and ZFL.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

	CBIL.TO	ZFL.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.47	-0.09	+9.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	-0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	11.64	0.16	+11.47

Drawdowns

CBIL.TO vs. ZFL.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBIL.TO drawdown since its inception was -0.06%, smaller than the maximum ZFL.TO drawdown of -40.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBIL.TO and ZFL.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBIL.TO	ZFL.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.06%	-40.32%	+40.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.04%	-6.68%	+6.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.06%	-14.51%	+14.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.25%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-40.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-31.87%	+31.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.00%	-12.45%	+12.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.01%	3.82%	-3.81%

Volatility

CBIL.TO vs. ZFL.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CBIL.TO) is 0.08%, while BMO Long Federal Bond (ZFL.TO) has a volatility of 3.14%. This indicates that CBIL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZFL.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBIL.TO	ZFL.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.08%	3.14%	-3.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.19%	7.05%	-6.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25%	9.72%	-9.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.31%	14.71%	-14.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.31%	12.54%	-12.23%

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

CBIL.TO has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than ZFL.TO's 0.22% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CBIL.TO vs. ZFL.TO - Dividend Comparison

CBIL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, less than ZFL.TO's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBIL.TO Global X 0-3 Month T-Bill ETF	2.29%	2.59%	4.38%	3.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZFL.TO BMO Long Federal Bond	2.84%	3.13%	3.20%	3.49%	3.77%	2.85%	2.57%	2.95%	3.00%	2.99%	3.05%	3.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CBIL.TO and ZFL.TO have a correlation of -0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

CBIL.TO is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for ZFL.TO.

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

They also come from different issuers: Global X and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for CBIL.TO and 0.22% for ZFL.TO.