PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GGRO.TO (iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio) and ZEB.TO (BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GGRO.TO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by iShares, while ZEB.TO is a Financials Equities fund tracking the Solactive Equal Weight Canada Banks Index. GGRO.TO is actively managed, while ZEB.TO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GGRO.TO returned 11.20%/yr vs 18.56%/yr for ZEB.TO. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGRO.TO achieves a 11.48% return, which is significantly lower than ZEB.TO's 21.18% return.

GGRO.TO

1D
-0.04%
1M
6.33%
YTD
11.48%
6M
8.73%
1Y
22.29%
3Y*
18.93%
5Y*
11.20%
10Y*
—

ZEB.TO

1D
1.64%
1M
6.82%
YTD
21.18%
6M
24.38%
1Y
63.15%
3Y*
34.10%
5Y*
18.56%
10Y*
15.96%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GGRO.TO
iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio		11.48%14.24%20.48%19.18%-14.11%15.52%7.20%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		21.18%43.43%24.58%10.87%-10.38%39.38%12.80%

Correlation

The correlation between GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO is 0.60, 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

0.60

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

0.58

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

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2020

0.54

The correlation between GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GGRO.TO
ZEB.TO

Technology

27.5%

-

Financial Services

23.1%
100.0%

Industrials

7.0%

-

Basic Materials

5.7%

-

Consumer Cyclical

3.8%

-

Healthcare

3.7%

-

Real Estate

2.3%

-

Communication Services

2.3%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.2%

-

Utilities

0.8%

-

Energy

0.0%

-

Technology

GGRO.TO
27.5%
ZEB.TO

-

Financial Services

GGRO.TO
23.1%
ZEB.TO
100.0%

Industrials

GGRO.TO
7.0%
ZEB.TO

-

Basic Materials

GGRO.TO
5.7%
ZEB.TO

-

Consumer Cyclical

GGRO.TO
3.8%
ZEB.TO

-

Healthcare

GGRO.TO
3.7%
ZEB.TO

-

Real Estate

GGRO.TO
2.3%
ZEB.TO

-

Communication Services

GGRO.TO
2.3%
ZEB.TO

-

Consumer Defensive

GGRO.TO
2.2%
ZEB.TO

-

Utilities

GGRO.TO
0.8%
ZEB.TO

-

Energy

GGRO.TO
0.0%
ZEB.TO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio

BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF

Often compared with GGRO.TO:
GGRO.TO vs. VGRO.TOGGRO.TO vs. VFV.TOGGRO.TO vs. XEQT.TOGGRO.TO vs. GEQT.TOGGRO.TO vs. ESGGGGRO.TO vs. GBAL.TOGGRO.TO vs. ESG
Often compared with ZEB.TO:
ZEB.TO vs. ZWB.TOZEB.TO vs. VDY.TOZEB.TO vs. HBNK.TOZEB.TO vs. HCAL.TOZEB.TO vs. HMAX.TOZEB.TO vs. ZSP.TOZEB.TO vs. XIC.TO

Return for Risk

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GGRO.TO
GGRO.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
GGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
GGRO.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO
ZEB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZEB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
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.

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) and BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.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.

GGRO.TOZEB.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.88
5.00

-3.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.61
6.79

-4.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.94

-0.59

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

7.52

-4.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.66

32.34

-20.69

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGRO.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is lower than the ZEB.TO Sharpe Ratio of 5.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGRO.TO and ZEB.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

GGRO.TOZEB.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.88

5.00

-3.12

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

1.38

-0.42

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.95

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.07

0.89

+0.18

Drawdowns

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGRO.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.13%, smaller than the maximum ZEB.TO drawdown of -39.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GGRO.TOZEB.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.13%

-39.69%

+17.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.74%

-8.44%

+0.70%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.78%

-14.80%

+1.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.13%

-25.97%

+3.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-39.69%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.66%

-0.39%

-0.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.96%

-5.65%

+0.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.92%

1.96%

-0.04%

Volatility

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio (GGRO.TO) is 3.84%, while BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF (ZEB.TO) has a volatility of 5.08%. This indicates that GGRO.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZEB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GGRO.TOZEB.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.84%

5.08%

-1.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.82%

11.16%

-1.34%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.91%

12.71%

-0.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.76%

13.53%

-1.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.57%

16.91%

-5.34%

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GGRO.TO vs. ZEB.TO - Dividend Comparison

GGRO.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than ZEB.TO's 2.49% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GGRO.TO
iShares ESG Growth ETF Portfolio		1.38%1.51%1.62%1.89%1.69%1.43%0.83%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ZEB.TO
BMO Equal Weight Banks Index ETF		2.49%2.95%3.98%4.75%4.29%3.13%4.15%3.65%3.64%3.02%3.19%3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GGRO.TO and ZEB.TO have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

GGRO.TO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while ZEB.TO is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GGRO.TO and ZEB.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