IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO

Last updated Jul 25, 2026

IFRF.TO (IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund) and ZFH.TO (BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IFRF.TO is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by IA Clarington Investments Inc., while ZFH.TO is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by BMO. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IFRF.TO returned 1.67%/yr vs 6.65%/yr for ZFH.TO. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IFRF.TO charges 0.93%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ZFH.TO.

Performance

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund (IFRF.TO) and BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFRF.TO achieves a 1.18% return, which is significantly lower than ZFH.TO's 2.38% return.

IFRF.TO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.52%
• 6M: 0.79%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 1Y: 1.55%
• 3Y*: 2.46%
• 5Y*: 1.67%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 1.63%

ZFH.TO

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.13%
• 6M: 1.77%
• YTD: 2.38%
• 1Y: 4.00%
• 3Y*: 8.44%
• 5Y*: 6.65%
• 10Y*: 5.44%
• ALL TIME*: 5.24%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IFRF.TO IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund	CA$79.18	CA$1.23K	CA$15.94K
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF	CA$246.87K	CA$222.58K	CA$258.07K

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
IFRF.TO IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund	1.18%	0.01%	2.53%	7.67%	-4.29%	3.42%	-0.18%	0.97%
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF	2.38%	5.61%	11.66%	13.66%	-0.89%	4.79%	-3.87%	2.16%

Correlation

The correlation between IFRF.TO and ZFH.TO is 0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2019	0.06

Return for Risk

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

IFRF.TO

IFRF.TO Risk / Return Rank: 23
IFRF.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
IFRF.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
IFRF.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 21
IFRF.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
IFRF.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 25

ZFH.TO

ZFH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 42
ZFH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
ZFH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
ZFH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 46
ZFH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
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.

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund (IFRF.TO) 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.

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.

	IFRF.TO	ZFH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	1.08	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.62	1.54	-0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.21	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.93	1.23	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.02	4.25	-2.23

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFRF.TO Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the ZFH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFRF.TO 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.

Drawdowns

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFRF.TO drawdown since its inception was -21.67%, roughly equal to the maximum ZFH.TO drawdown of -21.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFRF.TO and ZFH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	IFRF.TO	ZFH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.67%	-21.41%	-0.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.67%	-3.27%	+1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.61%	-6.39%	+1.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-6.54%	-9.75%	+3.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-21.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.46%	+0.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-2.04%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.77%	0.94%	-0.17%

Volatility

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Volatility Comparison

IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund (IFRF.TO) has a higher volatility of 1.05% compared to BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF (ZFH.TO) at 0.54%. This indicates that IFRF.TO'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

	IFRF.TO	ZFH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.05%	0.54%	+0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.66%	2.62%	+0.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.70%	3.72%	-0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.51%	8.09%	-3.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.81%	9.41%	-0.60%

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFRF.TO has a 0.93% expense ratio, which is higher than ZFH.TO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFRF.TO vs. ZFH.TO - Dividend Comparison

IFRF.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.95%, more than ZFH.TO's 5.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IFRF.TO IA Clarington Loomis Floating Rate Income Fund	6.95%	6.91%	7.69%	7.74%	5.66%	3.88%	3.36%	0.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ZFH.TO BMO Floating Rate High Yield ETF	5.18%	5.58%	7.82%	7.07%	4.81%	4.54%	4.57%	4.32%	4.51%	4.64%	4.70%	5.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

IFRF.TO and ZFH.TO have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, IFRF.TO or ZFH.TO?

On fees, ZFH.TO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, IFRF.TO or ZFH.TO?

ZFH.TO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.93% for IFRF.TO.

What is the main difference between IFRF.TO and ZFH.TO?

IFRF.TO is categorized as Bank Loan, while ZFH.TO is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: IA Clarington Investments Inc. and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.93% for IFRF.TO and 0.40% for ZFH.TO.