EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EQL.TO (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD) and ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EQL.TO is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, while ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQL.TO returned 11.46%/yr vs 20.21%/yr for ZEB.TO. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD (EQL.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQL.TO achieves a 14.48% return, which is significantly lower than ZEB.TO's 30.07% return.

EQL.TO

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 2.87%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 13.62%
• 1Y: 22.69%
• 3Y*: 17.67%
• 5Y*: 11.46%
• 10Y*: —

ZEB.TO

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: 6.91%
• YTD: 30.07%
• 6M: 29.50%
• 1Y: 71.77%
• 3Y*: 37.81%
• 5Y*: 20.21%
• 10Y*: 17.06%

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

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EQL.TO Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD	14.48%	5.94%	21.81%	11.36%	-6.24%	28.55%	10.48%	22.62%	-4.47%
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	30.07%	43.43%	24.58%	10.87%	-10.38%	39.38%	3.52%	16.06%	-6.87%

Correlation

The correlation between EQL.TO and ZEB.TO is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2018	0.62

The correlation between EQL.TO and ZEB.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.62 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQL.TO	ZEB.TO
Technology	21.5%	-
Industrials	14.1%	-
Financial Services	13.9%	100.0%
Healthcare	11.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Real Estate	6.0%	-
Utilities	5.5%	-
Energy	4.0%	-
Communication Services	3.9%	-
Basic Materials	3.9%	-

Return for Risk

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQL.TO

EQL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 69
EQL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
EQL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EQL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 62
EQL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EQL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 73

ZEB.TO

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

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.

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD (EQL.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.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.

	EQL.TO	ZEB.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	5.61	-3.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	7.48	-4.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	2.03	-0.70
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	8.55	-5.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.12	36.76	-24.65

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is lower than the ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio of 5.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQL.TO and ZEB.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

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQL.TO drawdown since its inception was -33.08%, smaller than the maximum ZEB.TO drawdown of -39.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQL.TO and ZEB.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQL.TO	ZEB.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.08%	-39.69%	+6.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.73%	-8.44%	+1.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.25%	-14.80%	-2.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.73%	-25.97%	+7.24%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.48%	+0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.96%	-5.64%	+1.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	1.96%	-0.08%

Volatility

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD (EQL.TO) is 3.05%, while BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) has a volatility of 4.02%. This indicates that EQL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQL.TO	ZEB.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.05%	4.02%	-0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.26%	11.09%	-1.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.06%	12.86%	-0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.35%	13.54%	+0.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.92%	16.89%	+0.03%

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EQL.TO and ZEB.TO have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EQL.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Dividend Comparison

EQL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than ZEB.TO's 2.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQL.TO Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Index ETF CAD	1.22%	1.38%	1.29%	1.39%	1.51%	1.30%	2.00%	1.49%	1.35%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZEB.TO BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF	2.32%	2.95%	3.98%	4.75%	4.29%	3.13%	4.15%	3.65%	3.64%	3.02%	3.19%	3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQL.TO and ZEB.TO in my portfolio?

EQL.TO and ZEB.TO have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EQL.TO or ZEB.TO?

Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQL.TO or ZEB.TO?

EQL.TO and ZEB.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

What is the main difference between EQL.TO and ZEB.TO?

EQL.TO is categorized as S&P 500, while ZEB.TO is Financials Equities. EQL.TO tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, while ZEB.TO tracks Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and BMO.