HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

HLIF.TO (Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A) and ZWB.TO (BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HLIF.TO is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Harvest, while ZWB.TO is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by BMO. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, HLIF.TO returned 21.89%/yr vs 30.29%/yr for ZWB.TO. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HLIF.TO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for ZWB.TO.

Performance

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.TO) and BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HLIF.TO achieves a 16.98% return, which is significantly lower than ZWB.TO's 26.23% return.

HLIF.TO

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 16.98%
• 6M: 17.27%
• 1Y: 37.01%
• 3Y*: 21.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZWB.TO

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 7.50%
• YTD: 26.23%
• 6M: 26.02%
• 1Y: 61.42%
• 3Y*: 30.29%
• 5Y*: 15.76%
• 10Y*: 13.33%

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

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HLIF.TO Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A	16.98%	25.43%	17.21%	6.13%	-2.97%
ZWB.TO BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF	26.23%	34.91%	19.41%	6.67%	-6.09%

Correlation

The correlation between HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2022	0.69

The correlation between HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

HLIF.TO

HLIF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 98
HLIF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
HLIF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
HLIF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 98
HLIF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
HLIF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 98

ZWB.TO

ZWB.TO Risk / Return Rank: 97
ZWB.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
ZWB.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
ZWB.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 98
ZWB.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
ZWB.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.TO) and BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.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.

	HLIF.TO	ZWB.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	5.32	5.36	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.98	7.28	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.11	2.02	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	12.03	7.89	+4.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	60.70	35.44	+25.26

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HLIF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 5.32, which is comparable to the ZWB.TO Sharpe Ratio of 5.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HLIF.TO and ZWB.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

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HLIF.TO drawdown since its inception was -11.12%, smaller than the maximum ZWB.TO drawdown of -39.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	HLIF.TO	ZWB.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.12%	-39.36%	+28.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.09%	-7.82%	+4.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.96%	-14.05%	+4.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.26%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	0.00%	-0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.00%	-5.54%	+3.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.61%	1.74%	-1.13%

Volatility

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A (HLIF.TO) is 2.13%, while BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF (ZWB.TO) has a volatility of 3.38%. This indicates that HLIF.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZWB.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HLIF.TO	ZWB.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.13%	3.38%	-1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.82%	9.95%	-4.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.98%	11.51%	-4.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.43%	12.65%	-2.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.43%	15.67%	-5.24%

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

HLIF.TO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ZWB.TO's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

HLIF.TO vs. ZWB.TO - Dividend Comparison

HLIF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.99%, more than ZWB.TO's 4.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HLIF.TO Harvest Canadian Equity Income Leaders ETF Class A	5.99%	6.26%	7.33%	7.96%	3.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZWB.TO BMO Covered Call Canadian Banks ETF	4.62%	5.38%	6.66%	7.62%	7.30%	5.46%	5.80%	5.53%	5.59%	4.80%	5.04%	5.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO in my portfolio?

HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HLIF.TO or ZWB.TO?

On fees, ZWB.TO is cheaper at 0.72% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HLIF.TO or ZWB.TO?

ZWB.TO is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for HLIF.TO.

What is the main difference between HLIF.TO and ZWB.TO?

HLIF.TO is categorized as Derivative Income, while ZWB.TO is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Harvest and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for HLIF.TO and 0.72% for ZWB.TO.