FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO
FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF) and ZEQL.TO (BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units)) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - FLUS.TO tracks the LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index while ZEQL.TO tracks the MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLUS.TO charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for ZEQL.TO.
Performance
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FLUS.TO
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- 6.59%
- YTD
- 13.62%
- 6M
- 8.27%
- 1Y
- 26.86%
- 3Y*
- 23.14%
- 5Y*
- 16.75%
- 10Y*
- —
ZEQL.TO
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 6.20%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF | 10.87% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 7.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLUS.TO and ZEQL.TO is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2026 | 0.49 |
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
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO — Risk / Return Rank
FLUS.TO
ZEQL.TO
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) and BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) (ZEQL.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.
| FLUS.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.92 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.86 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FLUS.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.05 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.15 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.95 | 2.01 | -1.06 |
Drawdowns
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLUS.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.25%, which is greater than ZEQL.TO's maximum drawdown of -6.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLUS.TO and ZEQL.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLUS.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.25% | -6.12% | -22.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.24% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.83% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.13% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.58% | +0.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.65% | -1.69% | -1.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.48% | — | — |
Volatility
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLUS.TO | ZEQL.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.00% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.68% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.18% | 12.92% | +0.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.63% | 12.92% | +1.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.84% | 12.92% | +2.92% |
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLUS.TO has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than ZEQL.TO's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLUS.TO vs. ZEQL.TO - Dividend Comparison
FLUS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, more than ZEQL.TO's 0.37% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF | 0.62% | 0.73% | 0.91% | 1.20% | 1.72% | 1.74% | 1.62% | 1.83% | 1.66% | 0.51% |
ZEQL.TO BMO MSCI USA Equal Weight Index ETF (CAD Units) | 0.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLUS.TO and ZEQL.TO have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ZEQL.TO is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ZEQL.TO is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for FLUS.TO.
FLUS.TO tracks LibertyQ U.S. Large Cap Equity Index, while ZEQL.TO tracks MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLUS.TO and 0.05% for ZEQL.TO.
Find the right allocation for FLUS.TO and ZEQL.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