CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO
CCCB.TO (CIBC Canadian Banks Covered Call ETF) and ZWU.TO (BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CCCB.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by CIBC, while ZWU.TO is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by BMO. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. CCCB.TO charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ZWU.TO.
Performance
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CCCB.TO achieves a 15.74% return, which is significantly higher than ZWU.TO's 10.43% return.
CCCB.TO
- 1D
- 1.24%
- 1M
- 4.27%
- YTD
- 15.74%
- 6M
- 20.61%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZWU.TO
- 1D
- 0.25%
- 1M
- -0.43%
- YTD
- 10.43%
- 6M
- 9.84%
- 1Y
- 16.30%
- 3Y*
- 10.85%
- 5Y*
- 6.39%
- 10Y*
- 6.05%
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CCCB.TO CIBC Canadian Banks Covered Call ETF | 15.74% | 21.01% |
ZWU.TO BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF | 10.43% | 0.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between CCCB.TO and ZWU.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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2025 | -0.00 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO — Risk / Return Rank
CCCB.TO
ZWU.TO
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CIBC Canadian Banks Covered Call ETF (CCCB.TO) 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CCCB.TO | ZWU.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.61 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 4.21 | 0.42 | +3.79 |
Drawdowns
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CCCB.TO drawdown since its inception was -7.92%, smaller than the maximum ZWU.TO drawdown of -37.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCCB.TO and ZWU.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CCCB.TO | ZWU.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.92% | -37.41% | +29.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -4.86% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -12.85% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -23.36% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -37.41% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.35% | -2.06% | +0.71% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.04% | -5.38% | +4.34% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.72% | — |
Volatility
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CCCB.TO | ZWU.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.80% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.26% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.06% | 7.59% | +5.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.06% | 10.47% | +2.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.06% | 14.18% | -1.12% |
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CCCB.TO has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than ZWU.TO's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
CCCB.TO vs. ZWU.TO - Dividend Comparison
CCCB.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.97%, less than ZWU.TO's 7.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCCB.TO CIBC Canadian Banks Covered Call ETF | 3.97% | 1.93% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ZWU.TO BMO Covered Call Utilities ETF | 7.08% | 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
CCCB.TO and ZWU.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.
On fees, CCCB.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CCCB.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ZWU.TO.
CCCB.TO is categorized as Derivative Income, while ZWU.TO is Utilities Equities. They also come from different issuers: CIBC and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CCCB.TO and 0.65% for ZWU.TO.
Find the right allocation for CCCB.TO 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