MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and BMO Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.TO).

MGRW.TO and ZESG.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. MGRW.TO is an actively managed fund by Mackenzie. It was launched on Sep 29, 2020. ZESG.TO is an actively managed fund by BMO. It was launched on Jan 15, 2020.

Performance

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Performance Comparison

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

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MGRW.TO Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF	0.93%	18.19%	21.41%	15.35%	-9.30%	13.37%	7.50%
ZESG.TO BMO Balanced ESG ETF	-1.23%	12.26%	16.70%	15.27%	-13.70%	13.20%	5.00%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGRW.TO achieves a 0.93% return, which is significantly higher than ZESG.TO's -1.23% return.

MGRW.TO

• 1D: 3.33%
• 1M: -3.05%
• YTD: 0.93%
• 6M: 3.87%
• 1Y: 18.96%
• 3Y*: 16.44%
• 5Y*: 10.67%
• 10Y*: —

ZESG.TO

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -2.95%
• YTD: -1.23%
• 6M: -0.17%
• 1Y: 11.61%
• 3Y*: 12.14%
• 5Y*: 7.47%
• 10Y*: —

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

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZESG.TO

BMO Balanced ESG ETF

Return for Risk

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

MGRW.TO

MGRW.TO Risk / Return Rank: 77
MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
MGRW.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
MGRW.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MGRW.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
MGRW.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 72

ZESG.TO

ZESG.TO Risk / Return Rank: 62
ZESG.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
ZESG.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ZESG.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 62
ZESG.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
ZESG.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) and BMO Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.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.

	MGRW.TO	ZESG.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	1.28	+0.36
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.29	1.78	+0.51
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.24	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	1.64	+0.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.61	6.48	+2.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGRW.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the ZESG.TO Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGRW.TO and ZESG.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MGRW.TO	ZESG.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.64	1.28	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.02	0.85	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.13	-1.93	+3.06

Correlation

The correlation between MGRW.TO and ZESG.TO is 0.53, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Dividend Comparison

MGRW.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.88%, more than ZESG.TO's 1.77% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MGRW.TO Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF	1.88%	1.84%	1.93%	2.28%	2.44%	1.77%	0.79%
ZESG.TO BMO Balanced ESG ETF	1.77%	1.71%	1.89%	2.22%	2.53%	2.05%	2.27%

Drawdowns

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGRW.TO drawdown since its inception was -17.20%, smaller than the maximum ZESG.TO drawdown of -100.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGRW.TO and ZESG.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	MGRW.TO	ZESG.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.20%	-100.00%	+82.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.38%	-7.18%	-2.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.20%	-18.81%	+1.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.49%	-100.00%	+96.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.45%	-99.93%	+96.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	1.82%	+0.36%

Volatility

MGRW.TO vs. ZESG.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie Growth Allocation ETF (MGRW.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.79% compared to BMO Balanced ESG ETF (ZESG.TO) at 3.58%. This indicates that MGRW.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZESG.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MGRW.TO	ZESG.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.79%	3.58%	+1.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.79%	6.29%	+1.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.59%	9.08%	+2.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.54%	8.85%	+1.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.46%	41.48%	-31.02%