PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and ZMT.TO (BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)) are both Energy Equities funds - CIF.TO tracks the Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index while ZMT.TO tracks the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO returned 12.99%/yr vs 17.71%/yr for ZMT.TO. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for ZMT.TO.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly lower than ZMT.TO's 39.44% return. Over the past 10 years, CIF.TO has underperformed ZMT.TO with an annualized return of 12.99%, while ZMT.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 17.71% annualized return.

CIF.TO

1D
1.03%
1M
3.28%
YTD
25.20%
6M
16.23%
1Y
35.22%
3Y*
25.10%
5Y*
18.52%
10Y*
12.99%

ZMT.TO

1D
-3.52%
1M
16.19%
YTD
39.44%
6M
46.49%
1Y
109.69%
3Y*
42.46%
5Y*
20.69%
10Y*
17.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		25.20%14.45%25.40%14.65%5.90%17.73%-0.62%23.55%-5.46%2.34%
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		39.44%63.17%15.30%14.54%-6.65%11.04%14.70%15.82%-34.17%37.76%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and ZMT.TO is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.34

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

0.35

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

0.42

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

0.41

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2009

0.40

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CIF.TO
ZMT.TO

Utilities

46.9%

-

Industrials

31.8%
10.1%

Energy

20.8%
3.7%

Technology

0.5%

-

Consumer Cyclical

0.5%

-

Basic Materials

-

89.9%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

CIF.TO
46.9%
ZMT.TO

-

Industrials

CIF.TO
31.8%
ZMT.TO
10.1%

Energy

CIF.TO
20.8%
ZMT.TO
3.7%

Technology

CIF.TO
0.5%
ZMT.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

CIF.TO
0.5%
ZMT.TO

-

Basic Materials

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO
89.9%

Communication Services

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO

-

Financial Services

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO

-

Healthcare

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO

-

Real Estate

CIF.TO

-

ZMT.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF

BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with CIF.TO:
CIF.TO vs. VFV.TOCIF.TO vs. MLPP.LCIF.TO vs. ZQQ.TOCIF.TO vs. CWW.TOCIF.TO vs. VGTCIF.TO vs. XDIV.TOCIF.TO vs. ZGI.TO
Often compared with ZMT.TO:
ZMT.TO vs. XBM.TOZMT.TO vs. ZGD.TOZMT.TO vs. COPPZMT.TO vs. COPXZMT.TO vs. SPYZMT.TO vs. REMXZMT.TO vs. SETM

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CIF.TO
CIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO
ZMT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.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.

CIF.TOZMT.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.33
2.84

-0.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
3.23

-0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.44

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.72

4.63

-0.91

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.46

14.58

-1.12

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and ZMT.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CIF.TOZMT.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.33

2.84

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.28

0.62

+0.66

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

0.53

+0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.00

+0.54

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, smaller than the maximum ZMT.TO drawdown of -80.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and ZMT.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIF.TOZMT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.37%

-80.73%

+38.36%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.50%

-23.81%

+14.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-33.28%

+12.88%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-41.01%

+20.61%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.37%

-67.51%

+25.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-3.52%

+2.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-43.15%

+37.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.63%

7.55%

-4.92%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 5.85%, while BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) has a volatility of 14.55%. This indicates that CIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZMT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIF.TOZMT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

14.55%

-8.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.44%

31.86%

-19.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.23%

38.81%

-23.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.56%

33.74%

-19.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.69%

33.32%

-16.63%

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMT.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ZMT.TO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than ZMT.TO's 0.15% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CIF.TO
iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF		1.77%2.05%2.84%2.36%2.53%2.24%2.06%1.83%2.45%2.27%1.81%2.41%
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		0.15%0.21%0.34%0.87%1.46%2.82%1.03%2.34%3.95%1.29%1.24%1.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIF.TO and ZMT.TO have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZMT.TO is cheaper at 0.61% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZMT.TO is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for CIF.TO.

CIF.TO tracks Manulife Investment Management Global Infrastructure Index, while ZMT.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.61% for ZMT.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIF.TO and ZMT.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