FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.TO

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FLUS.TO (Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index 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, FLUS.TO returned 15.53%/yr vs 6.22%/yr for ZLH.TO. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLUS.TO charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ZLH.TO.

Performance

FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.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, FLUS.TO achieves a 15.43% return, which is significantly higher than ZLH.TO's 7.75% return.

FLUS.TO

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: -0.12%
• 6M: 12.31%
• YTD: 15.43%
• 1Y: 23.07%
• 3Y*: 22.24%
• 5Y*: 15.53%
• 10Y*: —

ZLH.TO

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -0.99%
• 6M: 5.33%
• YTD: 7.75%
• 1Y: 8.83%
• 3Y*: 8.09%
• 5Y*: 6.22%
• 10Y*: 7.20%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	15.43%	10.51%	34.62%	20.97%	-9.96%	25.50%	8.45%	21.86%	4.72%	6.87%
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF	7.75%	5.90%	10.95%	-2.11%	0.20%	22.07%	2.34%	25.20%	-1.85%	4.73%

Correlation

The correlation between FLUS.TO and ZLH.TO is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2017	0.35

The correlation between FLUS.TO and ZLH.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (3 years) to 0.35 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	FLUS.TO	ZLH.TO
Technology	37.0%	18.7%
Communication Services	11.7%	3.0%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	3.2%
Healthcare	10.1%	17.8%
Financial Services	9.6%	11.7%
Industrials	9.5%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	12.4%
Real Estate	2.7%	3.4%
Basic Materials	1.7%	2.2%
Utilities	1.4%	20.7%
Energy	0.9%	0.7%

Return for Risk

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

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

FLUS.TO

FLUS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 58
FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FLUS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
FLUS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 63
FLUS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FLUS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 57

ZLH.TO

ZLH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 26
ZLH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
ZLH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
ZLH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 26
ZLH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
ZLH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.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 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.

	FLUS.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	0.82	+0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.22	1.12	+1.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.16	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	1.21	+1.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.15	2.92	+5.24

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

The current FLUS.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the ZLH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLUS.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

FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLUS.TO drawdown since its inception was -28.24%, smaller than the maximum ZLH.TO drawdown of -33.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLUS.TO and ZLH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLUS.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.24%	-33.34%	+5.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.85%	-7.35%	-2.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.82%	-10.17%	-8.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.11%	-14.66%	-4.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-33.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.57%	-3.32%	+1.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.68%	-3.90%	+0.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.84%	3.03%	-0.19%

Volatility

FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Volatility Comparison

Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLUS.TO) and BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF (ZLH.TO) have volatilities of 4.56% and 4.48%, 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

	FLUS.TO	ZLH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.56%	4.48%	+0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.48%	7.77%	+3.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.02%	10.85%	+4.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.98%	12.28%	+2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.95%	13.84%	+2.11%

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

FLUS.TO has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than ZLH.TO's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLUS.TO vs. ZLH.TO - Dividend Comparison

FLUS.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than ZLH.TO's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FLUS.TO Franklin U.S. Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF	0.57%	0.74%	0.94%	1.24%	1.77%	1.80%	1.67%	1.89%	1.72%	0.60%	0.00%
ZLH.TO BMO Low Volatility US Equity Hedged to CAD ETF	1.76%	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 FLUS.TO and ZLH.TO in my portfolio?

FLUS.TO and ZLH.TO have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, FLUS.TO is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

FLUS.TO is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ZLH.TO.

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

They also come from different issuers: Franklin and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLUS.TO and 0.30% for ZLH.TO.