GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GFGB.L (VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF) and ZFH.TO (BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. GFGB.L is passively managed, while ZFH.TO is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GFGB.L returned 4.31%/yr vs 4.86%/yr for ZFH.TO. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.40% expense ratio.

Performance

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) and BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

GFGB.L is traded in GBP, while ZFH.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the ZFH.TO values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFGB.L achieves a 3.80% return, which is significantly higher than ZFH.TO's 1.20% return.

GFGB.L

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 1.74%
• YTD: 3.80%
• 6M: 3.63%
• 1Y: 9.92%
• 3Y*: 6.58%
• 5Y*: 4.31%
• 10Y*: —

ZFH.TO

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -0.39%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: -0.08%
• 1Y: 5.22%
• 3Y*: 5.36%
• 5Y*: 4.86%
• 10Y*: 5.48%

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

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GFGB.L VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF	3.80%	2.41%	7.87%	4.27%	-2.32%	3.31%	13.08%	9.77%	6.75%
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF	1.20%	2.71%	4.53%	10.33%	3.42%	6.50%	-4.88%	12.23%	6.54%

Correlation

The correlation between GFGB.L and ZFH.TO is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2018	0.40

Return for Risk

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFGB.L

GFGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 49
GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
GFGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GFGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 45
GFGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
GFGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

ZFH.TO

ZFH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 42
ZFH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ZFH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
ZFH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ZFH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
ZFH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) and BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.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.

	GFGB.L	ZFH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	0.78	+0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	1.15	+0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.14	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	1.69	+1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.50	4.04	+4.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is higher than the ZFH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFGB.L and ZFH.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GFGB.L	ZFH.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.43	0.78	+0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	0.52	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.43	+0.23

Drawdowns

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFGB.L drawdown since its inception was -15.95%, smaller than the maximum ZFH.TO drawdown of -22.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFGB.L and ZFH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFGB.L	ZFH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.95%	-22.97%	+7.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.04%	-2.97%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.54%	-8.72%	+1.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-10.36%	-8.72%	-1.64%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.97%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.13%	-1.34%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.52%	-4.25%	+1.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.16%	1.24%	-0.08%

Volatility

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFGB.L) has a higher volatility of 3.51% compared to BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.TO) at 1.90%. This indicates that GFGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZFH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFGB.L	ZFH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.51%	1.90%	+1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.86%	4.71%	+1.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.89%	6.43%	+0.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.81%	9.39%	-1.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.80%	11.88%	-3.08%

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GFGB.L and ZFH.TO have an expense ratio of 0.40%.

Dividends

GFGB.L vs. ZFH.TO - Dividend Comparison

GFGB.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ZFH.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.21%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GFGB.L VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF	5.21%	5.52%	7.72%	6.98%	4.75%	4.48%	4.51%	4.27%	4.45%	4.58%	4.64%	4.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFGB.L and ZFH.TO in my portfolio?

GFGB.L and ZFH.TO have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GFGB.L or ZFH.TO?

Both ETFs have the same 0.40% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFGB.L or ZFH.TO?

GFGB.L and ZFH.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.40% per year.

What is the main difference between GFGB.L and ZFH.TO?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and BMO.