FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

FCUQ.TO (Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF) and ZLH.TO (BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 5 years, FCUQ.TO returned 12.68%/yr vs 6.47%/yr for ZLH.TO. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCUQ.TO charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZLH.TO.

Performance

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.TO) and BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCUQ.TO achieves a 8.43% return, which is significantly lower than ZLH.TO's 8.99% return.

FCUQ.TO

• 1D: -1.13%
• 1M: 0.32%
• 6M: 6.12%
• YTD: 8.43%
• 1Y: 10.97%
• 3Y*: 16.22%
• 5Y*: 12.68%
• 10Y*: —

ZLH.TO

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 3.07%
• 6M: 6.09%
• YTD: 8.99%
• 1Y: 8.78%
• 3Y*: 8.70%
• 5Y*: 6.47%
• 10Y*: 7.32%

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

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FCUQ.TO Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF	8.43%	4.69%	32.91%	20.08%	-11.46%	31.71%	9.30%	29.08%
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF	8.99%	5.90%	10.95%	-2.11%	0.20%	22.07%	2.34%	21.00%

Correlation

The correlation between FCUQ.TO and ZLH.TO is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.25
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2019	0.32

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCUQ.TO	ZLH.TO
Technology	41.0%	18.7%
Industrials	15.7%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	10.2%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	3.2%
Basic Materials	5.9%	2.2%
Financial Services	5.3%	11.7%
Healthcare	3.2%	17.8%
Communication Services	3.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.7%	3.4%
Energy	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	20.7%

Return for Risk

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCUQ.TO

FCUQ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 29
FCUQ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
FCUQ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FCUQ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
FCUQ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
FCUQ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 28

ZLH.TO

ZLH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 28
ZLH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
ZLH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
ZLH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 29
ZLH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
ZLH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.TO) and BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.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.

	FCUQ.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	0.81	+0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	1.11	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.16	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	1.20	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.94	2.90	+0.04

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCUQ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is comparable to the ZLH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCUQ.TO and ZLH.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

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCUQ.TO drawdown since its inception was -27.90%, smaller than the maximum ZLH.TO drawdown of -33.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCUQ.TO and ZLH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCUQ.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.90%	-33.34%	+5.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.14%	-7.35%	-4.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.47%	-10.17%	-6.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.73%	-14.66%	-8.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.18%	-2.20%	-0.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.81%	-3.90%	-0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.74%	3.04%	+0.70%

Volatility

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF (FCUQ.TO) and BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.TO) have volatilities of 3.82% and 3.96%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCUQ.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.82%	3.96%	-0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.35%	7.88%	+2.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.40%	10.88%	+1.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.74%	12.29%	+2.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.16%	13.84%	+10.32%

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCUQ.TO has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ZLH.TO's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCUQ.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Dividend Comparison

FCUQ.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than ZLH.TO's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FCUQ.TO Fidelity U.S. High Quality ETF	0.73%	0.74%	0.78%	0.89%	1.06%	0.77%	1.22%	0.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF	1.74%	1.92%	2.25%	2.45%	2.12%	1.84%	1.95%	1.55%	2.00%	1.93%	2.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCUQ.TO and ZLH.TO in my portfolio?

FCUQ.TO and ZLH.TO have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FCUQ.TO or ZLH.TO?

On fees, ZLH.TO is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCUQ.TO or ZLH.TO?

ZLH.TO is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for FCUQ.TO.

What is the main difference between FCUQ.TO and ZLH.TO?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FCUQ.TO and 0.30% for ZLH.TO.