QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QTIP.NEO (Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)) and ZMMK.TO (BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series) are both exchange-traded funds - QTIP.NEO is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Solactive US Treasury Inflation-Linked Bond Hedged to CAD TR Index, while ZMMK.TO is a Money Market fund actively managed by BMO. QTIP.NEO is passively managed, while ZMMK.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QTIP.NEO returned 2.70%/yr vs 3.86%/yr for ZMMK.TO. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. QTIP.NEO charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for ZMMK.TO.

Performance

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO) and BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series (ZMMK.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTIP.NEO achieves a 0.87% return, which is significantly lower than ZMMK.TO's 0.99% return.

QTIP.NEO

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -0.23%
• YTD: 0.87%
• 6M: 0.36%
• 1Y: 2.50%
• 3Y*: 2.70%
• 5Y*: 0.18%
• 10Y*: —

ZMMK.TO

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 0.99%
• 6M: 1.17%
• 1Y: 2.50%
• 3Y*: 3.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QTIP.NEO Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)	0.87%	4.82%	0.82%	3.50%	-12.98%	1.00%
ZMMK.TO BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series	0.99%	2.77%	4.94%	4.86%	1.99%	0.04%

Correlation

The correlation between QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.TO is -0.10, 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	-0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 3, 2021	-0.03

Return for Risk

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTIP.NEO

QTIP.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 25
QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
QTIP.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
QTIP.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 22
QTIP.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
QTIP.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 27

ZMMK.TO

ZMMK.TO Risk / Return Rank: 100
ZMMK.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
ZMMK.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
ZMMK.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 99
ZMMK.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
ZMMK.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO) and BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series (ZMMK.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.

	QTIP.NEO	ZMMK.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	9.68	-8.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.16	24.12	-22.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	5.48	-4.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	83.57	-82.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.58	380.38	-376.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTIP.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is lower than the ZMMK.TO Sharpe Ratio of 9.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QTIP.NEO	ZMMK.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81	9.68	-8.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	10.31	-9.96

Drawdowns

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTIP.NEO drawdown since its inception was -15.03%, which is greater than ZMMK.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTIP.NEO	ZMMK.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.03%	-0.16%	-14.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.02%	-0.03%	-1.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.59%	-0.08%	-4.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.09%	0.00%	-4.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.78%	-0.00%	-4.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.80%	0.01%	+0.79%

Volatility

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Volatility Comparison

Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged) (QTIP.NEO) has a higher volatility of 1.27% compared to BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series (ZMMK.TO) at 0.06%. This indicates that QTIP.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZMMK.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTIP.NEO	ZMMK.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	0.06%	+1.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.48%	0.18%	+2.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.56%	0.26%	+3.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.25%	0.34%	+5.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.31%	0.34%	+5.97%

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTIP.NEO has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ZMMK.TO's 0.13% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

QTIP.NEO vs. ZMMK.TO - Dividend Comparison

QTIP.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.56%, more than ZMMK.TO's 2.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QTIP.NEO Mackenzie US TIPS Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)	3.56%	4.54%	4.53%	5.08%	9.47%	5.24%	2.17%	2.29%	2.91%
ZMMK.TO BMO Money Market Fund ETF Series	2.53%	3.02%	4.66%	4.98%	1.95%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.TO in my portfolio?

QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.TO have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, QTIP.NEO or ZMMK.TO?

On fees, ZMMK.TO is cheaper at 0.13% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTIP.NEO or ZMMK.TO?

ZMMK.TO is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for QTIP.NEO.

What is the main difference between QTIP.NEO and ZMMK.TO?

QTIP.NEO is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while ZMMK.TO is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: Mackenzie and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QTIP.NEO and 0.13% for ZMMK.TO.