PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO).

NNRG.NEO and ZMT.TO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. NNRG.NEO is a passively managed fund by Ninepoint that tracks the performance of the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. It was launched on May 11, 2021. ZMT.TO is a passively managed fund by BMO that tracks the performance of the Solactive Equal Weight Global Base Metals Index Canadian Dollar Hedged. It was launched on Oct 20, 2009. Both NNRG.NEO and ZMT.TO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		32.61%19.14%13.26%-4.21%66.18%55.91%
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		12.95%63.17%15.30%14.54%-6.65%-14.76%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NNRG.NEO achieves a 32.61% return, which is significantly higher than ZMT.TO's 12.95% return.

NNRG.NEO

1D
-3.69%
1M
12.20%
YTD
32.61%
6M
42.68%
1Y
47.71%
3Y*
21.15%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

ZMT.TO

1D
3.17%
1M
-11.66%
YTD
12.95%
6M
29.14%
1Y
95.28%
3Y*
29.63%
5Y*
17.69%
10Y*
16.02%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Ninepoint Energy ETF

BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)

Often compared with NNRG.NEO:
NNRG.NEO vs. XEG.TONNRG.NEO vs. DXMO.TONNRG.NEO vs. IXCNNRG.NEO vs. FRU.TONNRG.NEO vs. ENCC.TONNRG.NEO vs. EFX.TONNRG.NEO vs. XBM.TO
Often compared with ZMT.TO:
ZMT.TO vs. XBM.TOZMT.TO vs. COPPZMT.TO vs. COPXZMT.TO vs. ZGD.TOZMT.TO vs. REMXZMT.TO vs. SETMZMT.TO vs. SPY

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

NNRG.NEO has a 1.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMT.TO's 0.61% expense ratio.

NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)

Return for Risk

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
NNRG.NEO
NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO
ZMT.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9292
Overall Rank
ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
ZMT.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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.

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) and BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.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.

NNRG.NEOZMT.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.76

2.35

-0.59

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.21

2.86

-0.66

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.41

-0.08

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.41

3.84

-1.43

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

7.37

11.94

-4.56

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

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the ZMT.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NNRG.NEO and ZMT.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.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

NNRG.NEOZMT.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.76

2.35

-0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.53

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.48

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.04

0.00

+1.04

Correlation

The correlation between NNRG.NEO and ZMT.TO is 0.37, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Dividend Comparison

NNRG.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, more than ZMT.TO's 0.18% yield.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NNRG.NEO
Ninepoint Energy ETF		0.56%0.37%0.39%0.38%9.08%1.92%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ZMT.TO
BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged)		0.18%0.21%0.34%0.87%1.46%2.82%1.03%2.34%3.95%1.29%1.24%1.10%

Drawdowns

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NNRG.NEO drawdown since its inception was -35.78%, smaller than the maximum ZMT.TO drawdown of -80.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NNRG.NEO and ZMT.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

NNRG.NEOZMT.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.78%

-80.73%

+44.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-20.22%

-23.81%

+3.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-41.01%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-67.51%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.78%

-11.66%

+6.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.77%

-43.55%

+33.78%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.61%

7.67%

-1.06%

Volatility

NNRG.NEO vs. ZMT.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) is 7.33%, while BMO S&P/TSX Equal Weight Global Base Metals (CAD Hedged) (ZMT.TO) has a volatility of 16.83%. This indicates that NNRG.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZMT.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

NNRG.NEOZMT.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.33%

16.83%

-9.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.41%

32.73%

-16.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.21%

40.74%

-13.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

34.50%

33.32%

+1.18%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.50%

33.23%

+1.27%