CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.TO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIF.TO (iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF) and ZWEN.TO (BMO Covered Call Energy ETF) are both Energy Equities funds. CIF.TO is passively managed, while ZWEN.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CIF.TO returned 25.10%/yr vs 19.60%/yr for ZWEN.TO. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CIF.TO charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for ZWEN.TO.

Performance

CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.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 Covered Call Energy ETF (ZWEN.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIF.TO achieves a 25.20% return, which is significantly lower than ZWEN.TO's 30.35% 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%

ZWEN.TO

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 30.35%
• 6M: 25.89%
• 1Y: 41.26%
• 3Y*: 19.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CIF.TO iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF	25.20%	14.45%	25.40%	11.40%
ZWEN.TO BMO Covered Call Energy ETF	30.35%	6.74%	10.43%	2.68%

Correlation

The correlation between CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2023	0.36

Over the past year, the correlation between CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO has dropped to 0.15 - well below their long-term average of 0.36, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

Sectors	CIF.TO	ZWEN.TO
Utilities	46.9%	-
Industrials	31.8%	-
Energy	20.8%	100.0%
Technology	0.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.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: 70
CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
CIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 71
CIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 71

ZWEN.TO

ZWEN.TO Risk / Return Rank: 74
ZWEN.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ZWEN.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
ZWEN.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 68
ZWEN.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ZWEN.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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. ZWEN.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 Covered Call Energy ETF (ZWEN.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.TO	ZWEN.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.33	2.49	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	3.18	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.41	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.72	4.37	-0.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.46	14.22	-0.76
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. ZWEN.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.33, which is comparable to the ZWEN.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIF.TO and ZWEN.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

	CIF.TO	ZWEN.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.33	2.49	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.81	-0.27

Drawdowns

CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -42.37%, which is greater than ZWEN.TO's maximum drawdown of -18.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIF.TO	ZWEN.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.37%	-18.75%	-23.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.50%	-9.50%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.40%	-18.75%	-1.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.40%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.76%	-2.09%	+1.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.66%	-4.38%	-1.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.63%	2.91%	-0.28%

Volatility

CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure Index ETF (CIF.TO) is 5.85%, while BMO Covered Call Energy ETF (ZWEN.TO) has a volatility of 7.08%. This indicates that CIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZWEN.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIF.TO	ZWEN.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.85%	7.08%	-1.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.44%	13.73%	-1.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.23%	16.69%	-1.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.56%	18.11%	-3.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.69%	18.11%	-1.42%

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

CIF.TO has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than ZWEN.TO's 0.88% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIF.TO vs. ZWEN.TO - Dividend Comparison

CIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than ZWEN.TO's 7.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
ZWEN.TO BMO Covered Call Energy ETF	7.56%	9.53%	9.09%	8.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO in my portfolio?

CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CIF.TO or ZWEN.TO?

On fees, CIF.TO is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIF.TO or ZWEN.TO?

CIF.TO is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.88% for ZWEN.TO.

What is the main difference between CIF.TO and ZWEN.TO?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for CIF.TO and 0.88% for ZWEN.TO.