PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO) and BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CJP.NEO achieves a 19.29% return, which is significantly lower than ZNQ.TO's 22.24% return.


CJP.NEO

1D
0.00%
1M
7.91%
YTD
19.29%
6M
21.96%
1Y
53.24%
3Y*
30.45%
5Y*
22.91%
10Y*
15.86%

ZNQ.TO

1D
-0.42%
1M
10.90%
YTD
22.24%
6M
18.27%
1Y
42.32%
3Y*
29.53%
5Y*
20.82%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
CJP.NEO
iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)
19.29%30.67%26.74%35.03%3.67%18.19%0.18%6.35%
ZNQ.TO
BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF
22.24%14.60%35.84%51.32%-28.06%26.59%44.65%22.90%

Correlation

The correlation between CJP.NEO and ZNQ.TO is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.40

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

0.41

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

0.39

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 13, 2019

0.38

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

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CJP.NEO
CJP.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
CJP.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CJP.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
CJP.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
CJP.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
CJP.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank

ZNQ.TO
ZNQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
ZNQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZNQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZNQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
ZNQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZNQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO) and BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.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.


CJP.NEOZNQ.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.56

1.48

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.87

3.40

+1.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

18.49

10.71

+7.78

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CJP.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 3.02, which is comparable to the ZNQ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CJP.NEO and ZNQ.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


CJP.NEOZNQ.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.02

2.71

+0.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.26

1.01

+0.25

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

1.06

-0.61

Drawdowns

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CJP.NEO drawdown since its inception was -38.36%, which is greater than ZNQ.TO's maximum drawdown of -32.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CJP.NEO and ZNQ.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CJP.NEOZNQ.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.36%

-32.09%

-6.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.99%

-12.50%

+1.51%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.86%

-22.67%

+1.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.86%

-32.09%

+11.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.42%

+0.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.16%

-6.63%

-4.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.89%

3.96%

-1.07%

Volatility

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (CJP.NEO) is 2.97%, while BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ.TO) has a volatility of 4.49%. This indicates that CJP.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZNQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CJP.NEOZNQ.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.97%

4.49%

-1.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.94%

11.99%

+0.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.80%

15.68%

+2.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.27%

20.81%

-2.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.60%

22.33%

-2.73%

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CJP.NEO has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is higher than ZNQ.TO's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

CJP.NEO vs. ZNQ.TO - Dividend Comparison

CJP.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, more than ZNQ.TO's 0.20% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CJP.NEO
iShares Japan Fundamental Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)
1.24%1.48%1.71%1.24%1.96%1.56%1.97%2.42%2.38%1.48%0.97%0.84%
ZNQ.TO
BMO NASDAQ 100 Equity Index ETF
0.20%0.25%0.30%0.35%0.23%0.12%0.47%0.52%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CJP.NEO and ZNQ.TO have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZNQ.TO is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZNQ.TO is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for CJP.NEO.

CJP.NEO is categorized as Japan Equities, while ZNQ.TO is Nasdaq-100. CJP.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Japan Canadian Dollar Hedged Index, while ZNQ.TO tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for CJP.NEO and 0.39% for ZNQ.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CJP.NEO and ZNQ.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