COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

COST.TO (Costco CDR (CAD Hedged)) is a stock, while ZEQT.TO (BMO All-Equity ETF) is Global Equities fund actively managed by BMO. Over the past 3 years, COST.TO returned 18.94%/yr vs 24.92%/yr for ZEQT.TO. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Costco CDR (CAD Hedged) (COST.TO) and BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COST.TO achieves a 8.81% return, which is significantly lower than ZEQT.TO's 13.85% return.

COST.TO

• 1D: 3.15%
• 1M: -4.42%
• 6M: -1.84%
• YTD: 8.81%
• 1Y: -2.17%
• 3Y*: 18.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZEQT.TO

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: -0.24%
• 6M: 9.51%
• YTD: 13.85%
• 1Y: 27.99%
• 3Y*: 24.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
COST.TO Costco CDR (CAD Hedged)	8.81%	-7.82%	37.46%	47.35%	-11.77%
ZEQT.TO BMO All-Equity ETF	13.85%	21.71%	30.06%	22.28%	6.98%

Correlation

The correlation between COST.TO and ZEQT.TO is -0.02, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2022	0.32

The correlation between COST.TO and ZEQT.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (1 year) to 0.32 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

COST.TO

COST.TO Risk / Return Rank: 37
COST.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
COST.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
COST.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 33
COST.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
COST.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 39

ZEQT.TO

ZEQT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 81
ZEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ZEQT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ZEQT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ZEQT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ZEQT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Costco CDR (CAD Hedged) (COST.TO) and BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.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.

	COST.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.11	2.09	-2.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.02	2.93	-2.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.38	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.13	3.22	-3.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.29	13.17	-13.46

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COST.TO Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the ZEQT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COST.TO and ZEQT.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

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COST.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.42%, which is greater than ZEQT.TO's maximum drawdown of -15.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COST.TO and ZEQT.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	COST.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.42%	-15.18%	-7.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.67%	-8.72%	-7.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.42%	-14.62%	-7.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.41%	-1.70%	-12.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.73%	-2.55%	-5.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.47%	2.13%	+5.34%

Volatility

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Volatility Comparison

Costco CDR (CAD Hedged) (COST.TO) has a higher volatility of 7.09% compared to BMO All-Equity ETF (ZEQT.TO) at 2.93%. This indicates that COST.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZEQT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COST.TO	ZEQT.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.09%	2.93%	+4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.24%	11.17%	+4.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.73%	13.43%	+6.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.19%	13.46%	+7.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.19%	13.46%	+7.73%

Dividends

COST.TO vs. ZEQT.TO - Dividend Comparison

COST.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than ZEQT.TO's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
COST.TO Costco CDR (CAD Hedged)	0.57%	0.59%	0.50%	2.88%	0.39%
ZEQT.TO BMO All-Equity ETF	1.28%	2.89%	5.08%	6.40%	7.31%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both COST.TO and ZEQT.TO in my portfolio?

COST.TO and ZEQT.TO have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.