CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CEW.TO (iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF) and ZEM.TO (BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEW.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD, while ZEM.TO is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEW.TO returned 16.59%/yr vs 11.32%/yr for ZEM.TO. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEW.TO charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for ZEM.TO.

Performance

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (ZEM.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEW.TO achieves a 26.79% return, which is significantly lower than ZEM.TO's 28.22% return. Over the past 10 years, CEW.TO has outperformed ZEM.TO with an annualized return of 16.59%, while ZEM.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 11.32% annualized return.

CEW.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 8.49%
• YTD: 26.79%
• 6M: 23.07%
• 1Y: 56.83%
• 3Y*: 35.13%
• 5Y*: 20.07%
• 10Y*: 16.59%

ZEM.TO

• 1D: -5.57%
• 1M: 6.07%
• YTD: 28.22%
• 6M: 29.06%
• 1Y: 52.02%
• 3Y*: 25.83%
• 5Y*: 9.73%
• 10Y*: 11.32%

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

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF	26.79%	32.70%	29.62%	17.18%	-6.76%	29.51%	-0.38%	25.64%	-12.71%	12.06%
ZEM.TO BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF	28.22%	27.66%	15.21%	7.38%	-15.80%	-2.64%	16.38%	13.23%	-8.06%	30.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CEW.TO and ZEM.TO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2009	0.43

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEW.TO	ZEM.TO
Financial Services	100.0%	18.7%
Basic Materials	-	6.1%
Communication Services	-	6.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.9%
Energy	-	3.7%
Healthcare	-	2.6%
Industrials	-	7.2%
Real Estate	-	0.8%
Technology	-	40.1%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEW.TO

CEW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 97
CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CEW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CEW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CEW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CEW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 95

ZEM.TO

ZEM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 77
ZEM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
ZEM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ZEM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ZEM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ZEM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) and BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (ZEM.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.

	CEW.TO	ZEM.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.85	2.22	+2.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.44	2.93	+3.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.89	1.44	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.02	4.49	+3.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.59	15.71	+13.88

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 4.85, which is higher than the ZEM.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEW.TO and ZEM.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.

Drawdowns

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEW.TO drawdown since its inception was -53.50%, which is greater than ZEM.TO's maximum drawdown of -34.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEW.TO and ZEM.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEW.TO	ZEM.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.50%	-34.79%	-18.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.13%	-11.64%	+4.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.72%	-13.59%	+0.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.41%	-30.69%	+8.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.66%	-34.79%	-8.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-5.57%	+5.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.93%	-10.14%	+3.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.93%	3.32%	-1.39%

Volatility

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF (CEW.TO) is 3.63%, while BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (ZEM.TO) has a volatility of 11.76%. This indicates that CEW.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEW.TO	ZEM.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.63%	11.76%	-8.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.17%	21.85%	-11.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.79%	23.56%	-11.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.57%	17.87%	-4.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.01%	18.77%	-1.76%

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEW.TO has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEM.TO's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEW.TO vs. ZEM.TO - Dividend Comparison

CEW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, more than ZEM.TO's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CEW.TO iShares Equal Weight Banc & Lifeco ETF	2.25%	2.82%	3.41%	3.98%	3.95%	3.10%	3.83%	3.39%	3.13%	2.62%	2.70%	2.91%
ZEM.TO BMO MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF	1.74%	2.23%	2.56%	2.87%	2.89%	2.50%	1.69%	2.42%	2.20%	1.76%	1.85%	2.45%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEW.TO and ZEM.TO in my portfolio?

CEW.TO and ZEM.TO have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEW.TO or ZEM.TO?

On fees, ZEM.TO is cheaper at 0.27% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEW.TO or ZEM.TO?

ZEM.TO is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for CEW.TO.

What is the main difference between CEW.TO and ZEM.TO?

CEW.TO is categorized as Financials Equities, while ZEM.TO is Emerging Markets Equities. CEW.TO tracks Morningstar Gbl Fin Svc GR CAD, while ZEM.TO tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for CEW.TO and 0.27% for ZEM.TO.