PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) and BMO Growth ETF (ZGRO.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GBAL.TO achieves a 9.95% return, which is significantly lower than ZGRO.TO's 10.93% return.


GBAL.TO

1D
-0.06%
1M
1.63%
YTD
9.95%
6M
7.45%
1Y
17.75%
3Y*
16.67%
5Y*
9.06%
10Y*

ZGRO.TO

1D
0.00%
1M
0.16%
YTD
10.93%
6M
10.40%
1Y
25.31%
3Y*
23.01%
5Y*
15.61%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio
9.95%11.78%18.80%13.10%-10.88%11.31%6.10%
ZGRO.TO
BMO Growth ETF
10.93%18.65%25.70%20.36%-5.92%20.50%10.34%

Correlation

The correlation between GBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO is 0.80, 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

0.80

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.66

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2020

0.52

Over the past year, GBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO have become more correlated (0.80) than their long-term average of 0.52, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GBAL.TO
GBAL.TO Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
GBAL.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank

ZGRO.TO
ZGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
ZGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
ZGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) and BMO Growth ETF (ZGRO.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.


GBAL.TOZGRO.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.40

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

3.70

-0.91

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.94

14.49

-3.56

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GBAL.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the ZGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GBAL.TO and ZGRO.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GBAL.TO drawdown since its inception was -20.01%, smaller than the maximum ZGRO.TO drawdown of -24.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GBAL.TOZGRO.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.01%

-24.67%

+4.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.40%

-6.87%

+0.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.24%

-11.60%

+1.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.01%

-16.21%

-3.80%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.13%

-2.43%

+1.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.90%

-2.49%

-2.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.63%

1.75%

-0.12%

Volatility

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio (GBAL.TO) is 3.71%, while BMO Growth ETF (ZGRO.TO) has a volatility of 5.05%. This indicates that GBAL.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZGRO.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GBAL.TOZGRO.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.71%

5.05%

-1.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.49%

9.91%

-1.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.98%

11.83%

-1.85%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.03%

11.18%

+2.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.57%

13.19%

+1.38%

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GBAL.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ZGRO.TO's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

GBAL.TO vs. ZGRO.TO - Dividend Comparison

GBAL.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less than ZGRO.TO's 2.24% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
GBAL.TO
iShares ESG Balanced ETF Portfolio
1.70%1.84%1.83%2.40%1.85%1.44%0.96%0.00%
ZGRO.TO
BMO Growth ETF
2.24%3.38%5.76%6.81%7.63%6.65%7.47%6.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


GBAL.TO and ZGRO.TO have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ZGRO.TO is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ZGRO.TO is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for GBAL.TO.

GBAL.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while ZGRO.TO is Global Allocation. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for GBAL.TO and 0.18% for ZGRO.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GBAL.TO and ZGRO.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