FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FCIL.NEO (Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF) and ZEA.TO (BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - FCIL.NEO tracks the Fidelity Canada International Low Volatility Index while ZEA.TO tracks the MSCI EAFE Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FCIL.NEO returned 9.23%/yr vs 11.38%/yr for ZEA.TO. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCIL.NEO charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.22%/yr for ZEA.TO.

Performance

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.NEO) and BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCIL.NEO achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly lower than ZEA.TO's 12.12% return.

FCIL.NEO

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 7.11%
• 6M: 6.92%
• 1Y: 15.37%
• 3Y*: 14.48%
• 5Y*: 9.23%
• 10Y*: —

ZEA.TO

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 12.12%
• 6M: 12.00%
• 1Y: 24.12%
• 3Y*: 19.22%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: 10.70%

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

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FCIL.NEO Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF	7.11%	21.40%	9.79%	11.49%	-6.83%	7.63%	-0.78%	11.33%
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	12.12%	24.92%	11.58%	16.04%	-8.50%	10.66%	5.15%	14.77%

Correlation

The correlation between FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 18, 2019	0.47

Over the past year, FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO have become more correlated (0.69) than their long-term average of 0.47, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCIL.NEO

FCIL.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 39
FCIL.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
FCIL.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FCIL.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
FCIL.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
FCIL.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 36

ZEA.TO

ZEA.TO Risk / Return Rank: 54
ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ZEA.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
ZEA.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 56
ZEA.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
ZEA.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.NEO) and BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.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.

	FCIL.NEO	ZEA.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.67	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.83	2.40	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.31	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	2.22	-0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.92	8.56	-3.63

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCIL.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is comparable to the ZEA.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCIL.NEO and ZEA.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

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCIL.NEO drawdown since its inception was -20.28%, smaller than the maximum ZEA.TO drawdown of -27.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCIL.NEO	ZEA.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.28%	-27.80%	+7.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.17%	-10.91%	+1.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.17%	-14.11%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.28%	-23.66%	+3.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-27.80%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.51%	-2.09%	-1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.46%	-4.61%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.13%	2.83%	+0.30%

Volatility

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF (FCIL.NEO) is 2.95%, while BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF (ZEA.TO) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that FCIL.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEA.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCIL.NEO	ZEA.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	4.91%	-1.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.63%	12.41%	-2.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.23%	14.51%	-2.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.88%	13.63%	-0.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.56%	14.79%	-1.23%

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCIL.NEO has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEA.TO's 0.22% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCIL.NEO vs. ZEA.TO - Dividend Comparison

FCIL.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than ZEA.TO's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCIL.NEO Fidelity International Low Volatility ETF	1.70%	1.82%	1.74%	1.94%	2.44%	2.53%	3.78%	2.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZEA.TO BMO MSCI EAFE Index ETF	1.90%	2.17%	2.78%	3.02%	3.08%	2.49%	2.74%	2.95%	3.05%	2.40%	2.80%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO in my portfolio?

FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FCIL.NEO or ZEA.TO?

On fees, ZEA.TO is cheaper at 0.22% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCIL.NEO or ZEA.TO?

ZEA.TO is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FCIL.NEO.

What is the main difference between FCIL.NEO and ZEA.TO?

FCIL.NEO tracks Fidelity Canada International Low Volatility Index, while ZEA.TO tracks MSCI EAFE Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FCIL.NEO and 0.22% for ZEA.TO.